Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
Quite a good look at the schemings of alarmists and the often supine, or even aiding and abetting, responses to them c/o 'Climate Science' presented in contrast to recent responses to the Corona virus scare:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/18/lessons-from-the-coronavirus-about-climate-change/
Meanwhile, Chaam Jamal's blog continues to repay regular visits:
e.g. his posts on The Bald Guy on Youtube (TBGY): https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/15/list-of-tbgy-posts/
Or his calm appraisal of likely topics for COP26 propaganda : https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/15/cop26-tippingpoints/
See the current list here (he numbers the most recent as '1', and pushes earlier articles down the list by one place):
https://tambonthongchai.com/
John Shade
Chaam Jamal's blog continues to repay regular visits: ….
“January 2020 was the hottest in modern recorded history. There has never been a warmer January in 141 years of climate records”.
Chaam: The relevance of these data to AGW climate change has not been established either by NOAA or by Carbon Brief. AGW climate change is a theory about the impact of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric composition and the further impact of the resultant higher atmospheric CO2 concentration on the long term warming trend in accordance with climate sensitivity. Therefore the progress of climate change and the determination of tipping points can be made only in these terms and not in terms of temperature events without the relevant warming trends that are implied by the use of the high temperature to claim a tipping point in AGW climate change.
Rising and record temperatures are not evidence for AGW on Planet Chaam.
temperatures in Antarctica surpassing 20C for the first time in recorded history.
As described in a related post, there was indeed a very high temperature recorded at the Esperanza Base near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. This temperature was reported almost 65F (equivalent to 18.3C). Thus, the very first sentence of the claim contains two errors. First, there is only one temperature measurement not “temperatures” and secondly, this temperature did not “surpass” 20C as the temperature was 18.3C, less than 20C
Wrong, and wrong. The Esperanza record was followed a few days later by a new record of 20.75C at Signy Island.
Repays visiting? Yep, if your thing is nonsense and basic factual errors. I know this thread is about 'intellectual poverty', but you can take these things too far you know....
LOL.
Phil Clarke
"Yep, if your thing is nonsense and basic factual errors"..........
Feb 18, 2020 at 6:15 PM Phil Clarke
Is that why you believe in Climate Science?
golf charlie
Repeatedly I wind up my steam powered Kindle and find listed new contributions to potentially interesting discussions such as this one. But when I open them up I am invariably disappointed - yet another episode in the Phil Clarke saga. Look back through this discussion and estimate how much is from him and his opponents. Then look at what is being discussed and its (probable) irrelevance to the discussion topic. I think the Philistine is a parasite.
AK
More from Chaam's response to Carbon Brief's article on COP26, described by John S as a 'calm appraisal'
CB: From Amazon rainforest “dieback” and permafrost thaw through to ice-sheet disintegration and shifting monsoons, these are “high impact, low probability” events. And there is no shortage of views about what tipping points exist and how close their thresholds lie.
Chaam: No data are cited for “Amazon rainforest dieback” or “permafrost thaw” or “ice sheet disintegration”. The only possible interpretation of these claims is that they are hypothetical events – in which case they have no relevance to real events that can be established with data
Hypothetical? No data? Utter bollocks. If you take the trouble to read the CB piece, to take the first risk: Amazon dieback, they cite two academic papers (Here and here.) They also reference the IPCC on Amazon Dieback. (Ar5 Chapter 12) which in turn supplies all the evidence and data you would need to conclude that Chaam's description of the phenomenon as 'hypothetical' is more evidence that he resides in some different reality.
I see myself more as a symbiote, AK. Mr Shade keeps promoting Chaam Jamal as worth a visit, (you might even think his site is state of the sceptic art), but if you actually go there and read his stuff, one soon concludes that it is only remotely connected to reality.
I know, I should just ignore it and move on, if only John had not entitled the thread as he did, I love a bit of irony ;-)
Phil Clarke
PC, at your very, very best you might be symbiotic, but 97% of the time you just suck a discussion dry, commonly diverting it into barren areas.
AK
Feb 19, 2020 at 11:55 AM AK
Climate Scientists can take the credit for Trump's election, BREXIT, BoJo, EU unrest etc. No wonder that Phil Clarke is so pleased.
golf charlie
Do stay on topic, you parasite ;-)
Phil Clarke
The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
as preached by:
Phil Clarke
golf charlie
COP26 scheduled for Glasgow in November will inevitably (because this is what they depend on) lead to a crop of melodramatic alarmism and displays of moral and intellectual depravity. Not a very heartening prospect.
BUT, there is also talk of a public debate on climate shortly before the COP- agitprop fest:
'The fast growing Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is planning a major debate on climate change. The event will coincide with the COP 26 UN climate summit in Glasgow this November. Unlike previous attempts at decisive debates, this one has an excellent chance of really happening.
CLINTEL President, Professor Guus Berkhout, explains the plan this way: “We are starting to organize the ‘debate of all debates’ just prior to COP 26 in Glasgow. More specific, CLINTEL will organize a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars. In CLINTEL we call it ‘The Grand Climate Debate’ and we plan to repeat such a landmark event each year! In this way we start a serious global depolarising initiative that could be the beginning of a new era. We propose to use the factual and well formulated World Climate Declaration as a basis for the agenda.”
Planning is fluid at this point but the ideas being considered are most intriguing. Here is a quick look at just some of them.
Rather than have debaters wing it, with lengthy ad hoc opening presentations, they will focus successively on the six principles outlined in CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration. These are central issues in climate science and policy:
1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause global warming. Nobody knows the ratio between the two.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted. There is no climate emergency.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. Models provide poor physical-numerical insight, making updating no more than guessing.
4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth. CO2 is not a pollutant and more CO2 is indispensable for a greener Earth
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters. Increase of natural disasters only exists in computer models.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. Current medicine (mitigation) is much worse than the disease (warming).
To avoid speech making there will be strict time limits on statements. The goal is to generate as much back and forth as possible, so that each argument gets fully fleshed out. There will be no lengthy canned presentations.'
https://www.cfact.org/2020/02/23/clintel-plans-a-grand-climate-debate/ [hat-tip: https://www.climatedepot.com/]
Let's hope this comes off. The problem will of course be that of getting anyone to stand up for climate alarmism in a public forum where debate is allowed with knowledgeable participants.
John Shade
Good luck with that. I can't see many world class scientists giving up an evening to debate claims that have already been examined and found to be a prime example of intellectual poverty. (I'm being polite).
Hint: Chris Monckton is not a world class scientist.
Phil Clarke
Hint: Chris Monckton is not a world class scientist.
Feb 24, 2020 at 6:30 PM Phil Clarke
He doesn't claim to be.
Hint: Hockey Teamsters are not world class scientists.
golf charlie
I don't think there are any 'world class' scientists in climate alarmist science. Hansen and Mann seem to be the most prominent, but they are unremarkable as scientists. Good at polemics and publicity generation perhaps.
Meanwhile, a 'political theory' professor has been making an awful fool of herself with regard to the climate hoo-ha:
'This is not the first time we have heard this sort of paranoid nonsense. As with others of her ilk, she fails to understand that it is the lack of evidence for any sort of climate emergency which explains the public’s apathy in the matter. It is really only the impressionable younger generation who have fallen for it.
In any case, the idea that a few conservative think tanks can persuade the public, in the face of the alarmist media onslaught, is absurd.
One does have to question though how a looby-loo like McKinnon ever got to be a Professor of Political Theory.'
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/02/25/lock-up-deniers-says-potty-professor/
And an earlier post by Donna Laframboise: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2020/02/24/unesco-prosecute-climate-criminals/
She notes: 'UNESCO’s 2019 climate-themed magazine includes an article titled Climate crimes must be brought to justice. It may as well have been called Off With Their Heads!
Writer Catriona McKinnon, a professor of political theory at the University of Exeter, thinks she’s the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Alternative perspectives shall not be tolerated. Non-compliance isn’t an option.
McKinnon wants to criminalize free speech. She wants to strip you and me of the right to determine our own destiny at the ballot box. Specifically, she wants to invent a new crime. The time has come, she says, to prosecute this crime.
Normally, laws get made by politicians. WHO ARE ANSWERABLE TO VOTERS. There’s supposed to be a shared understanding, in the jurisdiction in which a new law applies, that a particular behaviour harms the community, and that punishing it is therefore necessary..'
Such peeks as this that we get into the minds of climate alarmists are very unsettling. Some seriously unpleasant, as well as incompetent, people are on board the CO2 Scare bandwagon. Are there any alarm-leaders that are admirable in any moral or intellectual sense? Can't think of any.
John Shade
It is well-documented that there was a concerted and deliberate campaign of AGW science denial and misinformation spread by (mainly US) conservative think tanks and astroturf groups, well-funded by fossil fuel interests. The professor is making the case that those responsible should be held to account. I wouldn't go as far as she does, free speech and all that, but she does have a point (if you read her actual words rather than the hysterical spin). I can see how Laframboise might be worried if being made accountable for her BS was a realistic prospect.
Meanwhile, can you name this unremarkable scientist?
Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society.
Awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal by the European Geosciences Union, the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication, the 2018 Climate Communication Prize from the AGU, the Public Engagement with Science award from the AAAS, and the Tyler Prize last year. Named one of the fifty leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American.
Currently ranked as a Distinguished Professor, named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the ISI, over 200 peer-reviewed publications, a h-index of 84 and over 32,000 citations.
Unremarkable? Really?
Are there any alarm-leaders that are admirable in any moral or intellectual sense? Can't think of any.
Pope Francis?. LOL.
As for other climate leaders and communicators: off the top of my head, David Attenborough, Caroline Lucas, May Boeve, Jacinda Ardern, Jane Goodall, Wallace Broecker, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Monbiot, Greta, Al Gore, Tom Wigley, Susan Solomon, Katherine Hayhoe, Spencer Weart.….
(cue the ad-homs) ;-)
Phil Clarke
(cue the ad-homs) ;-)
Feb 25, 2020 at 8:57 PM Phil Clarke
Do you mean like this? :
"Hint: Chris Monckton is not a world class scientist.
Feb 24, 2020 at 6:30 PM Phil Clarke"
golf charlie
Read the link ;-)
Phil Clarke
Read the link ;-)
Feb 26, 2020 at 8:19 AM Phil Clarke
Is it full of your normal ad homs?
golf charlie
That's a list of "climate leaders" and communicators?
just leave out "the top of"
Fred
Phil shows up on page 5 to disrupt.
The only astonishing thing is that McIntyre would devote so many words and activity to a Straw Man. Schmidt never claimed his histogram 'refuted' Christy, just that it was a clearer way of depicting trends and differences. I agree.
May 7, 2016 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2101561?currentPage=5
clipe
Mann v National Review
fred
The febrile minds of some of those promoting CO2 scaremongering are wondrous to behold. Their agitation can lead them into publishing nonsense and junk without noticing a thing wrong with it.
Here is a good Fisking of a piece in the awful New York Times (now overshadowed as a paper of record by the Babylon Bee, thank goodness), a piece that tries to defame a climate expert by misrepresentation, lies, and innuendo::
'The NY Times has been at it again – this time printing bald-faced inaccuracies (some might call it lying….).
Hiroko Tabuchi, a climate reporter for The New York Times, penned “A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research” in the 2 March 2020 online version of the Times. I have tried, but I have found it difficult to find anything true in the story.'
Details here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/04/fact-checking-the-ny-times-lies/
John Shade
'The NY Times has been at it again – this time printing bald-faced inaccuracies (some might call it lying….).
Mar 5, 2020 at 5:06 PM John Shade
So much of Climate Science has been wasted trying to prove Mann's Bent Hockey Stick and the 97% corrupted consensus, that it is fair to assume that 97% of Climate Science is not based on Science.
Reading tea leaves in a canteen supplied with tea bags would reduce the error margins.
golf charlie
I have tried, but I have found it difficult to find anything true in the story.'
Intellectual Poverty writ large. I have tried, but found it difficult to find where the WUWT piece mentions that the subject of the NY Times article is a regular WUWT contributor, or that he is in the pay of the Heartland Institute, as indeed is Mr Watts himself.
Circle Jerk.
Phil Stoat
"Circle Jerk.
Mar 5, 2020 at 11:53 PM Phil Stoat"
Proof that WUWT must be correct.
golf charlie
Alarmist ;-)