Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
Nov 17, 2019 at 10:22 PM Phil Clarke
This exercise has been succesful beyond the authors' wildest dreams.
I can only thank the *deniers* for the extra *publicity*
Mr Clarke: who are these “deniers” and what are they denying?
Nov 17, 2019 at 10:51 PM | Radical Rodent
Well, if you don't know by now....
Nov 18, 2019 at 10:31 AM Phil Clarke
Mr Clarke: you are wriggling.IMHO the Global Warming side seem to be all about Public Relations
Please, let me know who you mean by “deniers” and what it is that they are denying.
Nov 18, 2019 at 6:10 PM fred
and not Truth
.. The use a mountain of PR trickery
One is Ad Homs : instead of debating challengers honestly they seek to rapidly DISMISS them by throwing a toxic boo-word label on them to DEHUMANISE them , and the POISON THE WELL of their speech.
#2 When they throw out such labels it's always wise to ask if the inspiration for such labels come from their own behaviour ?
ie are they PROJECTING ?
So look at this comment
?? The paper and the list of names are where they always have been.To which Fred replied Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM
Nov 18, 2019 at 8:11 PM Phil Clarke
pointing out that 'The paper and the list of names are' NOT 'where they always have been.'
"The paper is no longer hosted at https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
And the signatories aren't there now - click the link on the "View the signatories " button.
Yes we know that.
I have multiple copies of the list as they put one up there, got called out for having Micky Mouse on , quickly sanitised it..put, put the new version up. took it down again etc.
and it is still not at the ORIGINAL place now.
So who is "in denial" about the truth ?
stewgreen
and apparently the report has vanished
'The report' must surely refer to the article published in Bioscience.
The dedicated thread here started with a link to it. All the media reports state things like ...
The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979
- Guardian
"Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any great existential threat," the signatories, who hail from 153 countries, said in a paper published in BioScience magazine on Tuesday.
-CNN
“Climate change has arrived and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected,” according to the letter published in BioScience.
- Independent
Even Anthony Watts got the source right, if not the details. So, no the report never 'vanished' and neither did the associated list of signatories.
Phil Clarke
Furthermore I pointed out that if they first put a list of names and claimed they were all kosher scientists ..and tgat was exposed as false
and they now claim the new sanitised list is kosher
I said "you end up with a 11,000 list of SELF REPORTED names and credentials that you are NOT sure are about."
It is not up to us to search through the 11,000 names
Its up to them to prove their clsim that it is kosher is true
Phil called me lazy and mocked me for not looking at the list
I asked him to imagine a hypothetical list from skeptics
and said
"People like Phil would be all over it
Pointing out this study has.. take off he doctors and dentists "
To which confused PC reacted as if I was talking about his 11,000 list he
replied
Nov 13, 2019 at 10:10 PM | Phil ClarkeThat's a straight DENIAL about the 11,000 .."no dentists"
There are no dentists on the list, Stewie, you're just making stuff up.
When I did take a quick glance at one of the sanitised lists I found a dentist within minutes
"kahn, sandra
orthodontist
United States of America (the)"
stewgreen
Was the report viewpoint OPINION piece at Bioscience servers when the signatories sighed it or was it on the Oregon State website ?
https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
stewgreen
Actual quotes
Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was we skeptics that had done did a internet petition'To which confused PC reacted as if I was talking about his 11,000 list'
'another close 1,000 are retired etc.'
'I do think that retired scientists count as proper scientists'
'study has 500 undergraduate students'
(Not quite 'reversed' then.)
'Doh it's not the actual number that matters''Am I debating in bad faith ?'
'It's bogus until proven true, not the other way around.'
'I simply cutNpasted someones word counts'
You may not be debating in bad faith, but you sure as hell assume others are.
Phil Clarke
Are they quotes ?
Some appear to be excerpts from a post I made on Nov 13, 2019 at 9:52 PM
mixed in with a jumble of lines lifted from all over different times and different posts.
One can't get truth when big context is omitted.
BTW my 9:52pm Nov 13t post said
Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was we skeptics that had done did a internet petition and used it to claim that 11,000 scientists had signed our official paperAm I assuming that PC is debating in bad faith
and the media gave it wide coverage and said all the people were scientists.
People like Phil would be all over it
Pointing out this
study has 500 undergraduate students
500 masters/ PHd students
another close 1,000 are retired etc.
take off the doctors and dentists and its another 650Then when it became apparent that the BBC had done no checks but merely cutNpasted the PR material: would the alarmists be saying
"Sure the BBC has nothing to apologise for " ?No, they'd be drama queening all over place.
or am I am putting forward evidence ?
BTW I just asked a straight forward question at Nov 19, 2019 at 3:57 PM
that was ignored by PC.
stewgreen
am I am putting forward evidence?
Well, that one's easy. No.
So, these 500 hypothetical (imaginary) undergraduates? What exactly was the point?
Phil Clarke
Ezra as usual is a bit long-winded but as usual entertaining,
11,000 'scientists' warn about climate change? FAKE NEWS! | Ezra Levant
clipe
Turns out it was 11,000 likes.
clipe
Some 20 hooligans, shouting away in a hotel reception area in order to intimidate management into cancelling an event to be held there. It seems that none were arrested, none were required to leave the premises, and the event was cancelled.because of concern for the safety of guests. The cancelled event was a climate conference organised by the German group EIKE, one of a series of such annual events which have attracted distinguished experts on climate variation, and on climate-linked policies. Civilised, knowledgeable people versus would-be gangsters.
Some reaction from Jo Nova: http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/hotel-chain-dumps-skeptic-conference-with-days-to-go-due-to-20-activists-with-megaphone/
She has spoken at one of these conferences, and urges readers to make an effort to attend next year.
Some details from the German climate blog, No Tricks Zone: https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/19/radicals-bully-nh-munich-conference-center-force-cancellation-of-13th-skeptic-climate-conference/
Once again, we might hope that more people will gain insight into the nature of some of those pushing for climate panic.
John Shade
@PC "500 hypothetical (imaginary) undergraduates"
*STRAWMAN* cos
I didn't make that claim about your 11,000 imaginary list did I ?
it was in my example of a skeptics list
It's up to you guys to prove your 11,000 list is robust
not for me to do verify all 11,000
when people glance there seem to be faults in each page
so people reason that adds up
stewgreen
@PC Was the report viewpoint OPINION piece at Bioscience servers when the signatories sighed it or was it on the Oregon State website ?
https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
stewgreen
"when the signatories signed it" it was on the Oregon State website - the links are still up around the place .
https://www.researchgate.net/post/World_Scientists_Warning_of_a_Climate_Emergency-Please_Sign
The Sun had 15000 signer-uppers
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/this-is-how-it-ends-thousands-of-scientists-sign-warning-to-humanity-letter-predicting-an-imminent-apocalypse/
16000 at https://www.globalchange.vt.edu/2017/11/16/warning-to-humanity-signed-by-16000-scientists/
and so on.... anybody bid me 20,000?
then it became "research"
bollocks
tomo
The UK Met Office has long been blighted by its leaders aboard the climate scare bandwagon. There seems little doubt that that has been good for their careers, and for funding, but what a blight they have been on society with their lucrative pessimism and hyperbole. Paul Homewood has caught them at recently over extreme rainfall and flooding events. He draws attention to studies which undermine their showboating, and concludes:
'All of this raises serious questions about the Met Office. If they are aware of these cyclical fluctuations, and particularly the flood dry period in between 1961 and 1990, why are they misleading the public about the cause of heavy rainfall and floods in recent years?
And if they are not aware of flood histories, surely this points to gross incompetence?
Either way, it casts them in a very poor light.'
Well worth reading his post in full: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/11/20/met-office-extreme-rainfall-scam/
John Shade
As I have noted a few times, I can't keep up with all the published insights into the turpitude and machinations of those pushing panic. But I can at least note a few in this discussion thread, which I hope might serve as a kind of 'tip of the iceberg' archive of this dreadful phenomenon.
Here is an overview post, linking to a video by Tony Heller in which he covers more examples:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/20/climate-science-riddled-with-dishonesty-incompetence/
(hat-tip: Greenie Watch)
John Shade
Different paper Tomo.
Phil Clarke
Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees.
You really see nothing wrong with this? Nothing whatsoever? Care to re-check the thread title?
Ever since Heller (aka Steve Goddard)'s first post where he falsely accused the NSIDC of fudging data, he's been making stuff up. He reliably gets everything wrong and never saw a cherry he didn't pick. Even Anthony Watts sacked him as a contributor and given that source's tolerance for pseudoscience, that is saying something.
Phil Clarke
"Different paper Tomo "
Nope the page I gave hosts the two lists
The old report
and their new one
AFAIK it was the original place where the opinion piece started
and where you clicked the button to sign
stewgreen
The old report and their new one
Old Report? Two Lists? So different papers then.
You're conflating two articles, the 2017 'Warning to humanity' and the 2019 'Climate Emergency' article which is the subject of this digression.
For both the process was the same: the article was submitted to BioScience, whilst in press a version was made available for signatories to read and endorse. Once published the 'in press' version was taken down.
Nothing ever 'vanished'.
Phil Clarke
"He reliably gets everything wrong and never saw a cherry he didn't pick.
Nov 21, 2019 at 8:39 PM | Phil Clarke"
Phil Clarke, that applies to you too. That is why Anthony Watts banned you aswell.
golf charlie
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/
Phil Clarke
As I mentioned above
The page https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
has at the top of the page
#1 the 2019 paper
"we invite you to sign our Viewpoint article “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by Ripple et al., which was recently published in BioScience Magazine."
.. "It is important that we get signatories from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. By signing, you will be included in the full list of scientists who have signed this article and your name will be published in the Bioscience supplement to the article as an official signatory."
Below it a button says "Sign The Article"
and At the bottom of the page
#2 "We invite you to endorse the letter “Solve the biodiversity crisis with funding,” which will be published in September in a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Click here to read and sign the letter. (that is the 2017 article)
stewgreen
Nov 22, 2019 at 12:00 AM | Phil Clarke
Is this why you were banned from WUWT? Or are there better examples?
Phil Clarke March 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“But nothing in that reply says the Daily Mail was wrong in saying the professor’s work found the Medieval Warming Period was global.”
Do keep up…“
It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2
emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/03/28/the-daily-mail-major-fail-scientist-sets-record-straight-on-medieval-warming-research/
Not much wriggle room there. Does Mr Watts have the integrity to correct his headline? Nope.
REPLY: Oh please. Here’s the authors own words:
The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,
but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the
MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as
far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region
have had mixed results.
"My headline “More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global” reflects that and I stand by that. Further, I was in contact with the Syracuse press agent Judy Holmes, and she read my article within minutes of publication and made no request for corrections then or now. It stays as is. Be as upset as you wish, I don’t expect an apology from you, as I know you are incapable of it, but please do perform a craniorectotomy on yourself."
– Anthony
Smokey March 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm
I can’t recall reading a Phil Clarke comment without thinking, “idiot”.
golf charlie
Wow. You've gone back 7 years to find that one comment?
My point stands, Watts, as ever, cherry-picked a phrase out of context to confect a half-true at best headline. Its just what he does.
Watt's headline:
More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global
What his source said after Watts and others misrepresented his paper:
The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe.
Seems pretty clear to me. I thought the WUWT readers deserved to see what the author had expressed - a different point of view, clearly not something the thin-skinned meteorologist tolerates.
Smokey, of course, was the sockpuppet for Dave Stealey. Stealey was a WUWT moderator and outspoken defender of the site party line who Watts allowed to pose as a commenter while covertly manipulating the debate by editing, delaying or simply deleting posts he didn't like.
WUWT site policy deplores sockpuppetry and states:-
Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion by people that stand behind their words.
Trumpian levels of honesty and integrity there. LOL.
:-)
Phil Clarke
Nope. The published paper must be regarded as the primary source and there is (of course) a link to the list from the paper, as I've already pointed out.
Seems to me you can complain about the calibre of signatory or how many members did not sign, doing both seems a bit greedy.