Another day, another turpitude: that's modern 'climate science and the media' for you:
https://cliscep.com/2016/05/10/new-paper-on-disappearing-solomon-islands-spawns-alarmist-media-hype/

As the author, Jaime Jessop notes at the end of her article describing this latest piece of nonsense, there is a consolation in the speed at which the junk is being exposed and refuted these days. With the added touch that in this case at least, some of the exposure came in a newspaper notorious for its complete devotion to the CO2 Alarm Faith:

For now, we sceptics can be content that media climate change/sea level rise alarmist hype has been so quickly and prominently rebuffed in one of the newspapers which was instrumental in promoting it in the first place! Sometimes, if you over-egg the message, you end up with a lot of that egg on your face.

Notorious scientist-impersonator Bill Nye has been at it again: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/bill-nye-at-it-again/

He tweets doom to take advantage of recent tornadoes causing damage in Kentucky. Paul Homewood takes a look at the data on tornadoes in the USA, and notes 'Meanwhile, back in the real world, tornadoes are so far year this year below average.' and 'And in the longer term, there has been a clearly declining trend in stronger tornadoes.'. He concludes his report with this:

Nye is no more than a huckster, pure and simple. It is sad that there are so many gullible people about who actually believe him.

There are so many instances of the poverty that I can scarce keep up with them here, but this James Delingpole captures one in his response to an excellent piece of work on No Tricks Zone:

'Richard shows that during the 1960s and 1970s, there was an 86 percent scientific consensus that the planet was on a cooling path. But this was airbrushed out of history so successfully that even now if you do a Google search on “70s global cooling scare” the top results claim it never really happened.

The top result is this one from Wikipedia on Global Cooling, which says:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

This is flat-out untrue – in fact the vast majority of scientific papers (220 out of 264) supported the cooling thesis – and makes a mockery of Jimmy Wales’s oft-expressed desire to reduce Wikipedia’s outrageous left-wing bias.'

The entire article is well worth reading: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/

And of course, the work by Kenneth Richard deserves to be studied and stored as a resource for the future.

Mediocre, sometimes astonishingly poor, scientific papers in the hard sciences are part of the CO2 Disgrace we are living through, but there is perhaps even more junk to be found in the social sciences, not least psychology. A recent paper there has been well-summarised as follows on CliScep:

This article is a disgrace to an International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. The editors and reviewers who passed it should sack themselves. Since academic independence is one of our most precious guarantees of freedom of thought, Lewandowsky Cook and Lloyd should be allowed to remain at their posts at their respective prestigious universities, to be ridiculed and jeered at until their retirement as the pathetic establishment-arse-licking charlatans that they are.

See the post on CliScep here: https://cliscep.com/2016/09/25/critique-of-lewandowsky-s-cook-j-lloyd-e-synthese-2016/

Some recent illustrations of the moral and intellectual poverty of the CO2 scaremongering movement:

(1) http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/21/wikileaks-soros-stooge-trashes-climate-scientists-career-brown-nose-billionaire-hillary-donor/
“The editor of ThinkProgress, the Soros-funded attack dog site, has been caught boasting to a billionaire liberal donor about how a smear campaign by one of his minions helped damage the career of a reputable climate scientist. “

(2) https://cliscep.com/2016/10/23/david-rose-man-of-the-people/
“One of the world's leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it to win millions from the taxpayer. “
See Rose's report here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html

(3) https://cliscep.com/2016/10/22/the-greentrashing-of-ridley/
“The press reaction to the annual GWPF lecture delivered by Matt Ridley at the Royal Society illustrates perfectly the insanity of the current state of discussion of climate change and all things environmental. “

(4) The resources this movement has wasted, and the flimsy justification for that: :https://cliscep.com/2016/10/19/matt-ridley-at-the-gwpf/
Text: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/matt-ridleys-2016-annual-gwpf-lecture/
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqnZOGmV-ZA
Josh cartoon-notes: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/10/18/gwpf-annual-lecture-2016-cartoon-notes-by-josh.html

(5) And the latest piece of junk science from the alarmers to have been demolished is reported on here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/24/scientists-debunk-climate-change-panic-behind-coffee-fungus/
"Recent claims by climate alarmists that global warming was threatening the world coffee supply and the jobs of “125 million people” have turned out to be completely unfounded, according to a new study released Monday by a group of researchers from the University of Exeter."

How much longer will this nonsense remain so influential as it has been?

What is it about CO2 Alarmism that attracts vicious and ruthless people? I learned today that Castro was one of them: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/26/world-mourns-mass-murderer-and-climate-warrior-fidel-castro/

The indefatigable Donna Laframboise has a point to make in the current fuss, at least in the States, about 'fake news':

Journalists have told us we should believe in a climate crisis because thousands of Nobel-winning scientists agree. But those scientists haven’t actually done Nobel-quality scientific work. They’re merely associated with a UN body that was awarded a Peace Prize. That these people have nevertheless allowed themselves to be described as Nobel laureates tells us two things. First, many scientists are OK with exaggeration. Second, they don’t think the public that pays their salary is entitled to the real goods.

More here: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2016/12/16/fake-news-not-new-and-not-rare/

Once again, we see that those dressed in the garb of planet-saviours, or their minions in the mass media, feel no need to pause to consider the integrity of their assertions. For them, it is the immediate effect on the politicals and the public and the sources of their incomes that counts.

Along there at the unhinged end of the spectrum of CO2 alarmists is a chap called Bill McKibben. He hires people to get arrested to add spice, and presumably publicity, to his efforts at civil disobedience. Here in his own words:

“Our advance team had been on the ground in Washington for three weeks. It turns out that in a market society there are people equipped to fill every need, including organizing civil disobedience. The crew we’d found, and who would soon become close colleagues, was headed by Matt Leonard.”

“Matt kept saying that we’d be fine with five or ten arrestees a day over our two-week protest; even as the number of people signing up kept mounting, he cautioned that many would melt away. The D.C. police must have felt the same way, because it was next to impossible to get their attention— our team was bounced from one sergeant to another, and none seemed to take the whole thing very seriously. I began to worry they’d just let us sit there, that we wouldn’t get arrested at all.”

More jaw-dropping stuff on him, and more links here (my source for the above quote):
http://defyccc.com/climatism-international-files-bill-mckibben-part-i/

Thank you for your comments, hunter and geronimo. Truthspeakers.

Meanwhile here is more stuff on those of a different stamp.

Andy May has an informative post up at WUWT on global cooling and fake news. It contains several links to turpitude on the part of CO2 Alarmists.

At the creepy end of the spectrum, there is to be found a chap called William Connolley, and Andy's post is primarily about his doings. The post begins:

There is an excellent new post up at notrickszone.com on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s and the efforts to erase it from the record by the climate alarmists at realclimate.com. For some the scandal at Wikipedia over William Connolley deliberately posting false articles and altering factual ones on climate is old news. This is for those who missed the story. William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. “Fake news” is an old story, used extensively by radical climate alarmists and environmentalists. Indeed, Greenpeace seems to be based on the concept of fake news.

The last two links in that extract illuminate an organisation called Greenpeace which is at the criminal or evil ends of the CO2 Alarmist Spectrum (it is a multidimensional one).

The entire post is well worth a read, as are the many pieces at the links.

Turpitude punished.

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.

http://linkis.com/www.nbcnews.com/news/lfsQO?next=1

I guess he was in the right agency for getting away with being an unexamined, unaccountable climate activist pre-occupied with damaging 'capitalism'. His boss is now under investigation. Her incompetence would also beggar belief if you hold a high opinion of climate activists. But who could?

Two congressional committees are now pressing the EPA, including administrator McCarthy, for answers on the handling of Beale’s case. Two new inspector general’s reports fault the agency for a lack of internal controls and policies that allegedly facilitated Beale’s deceptions.

McCarthy didn't care much for the American economy either:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted her agency’s signature regulation aimed at tackling global warming was meant to show “leadership” rather than actually curb projected warming. – McCarthy admitted as much after being questioned by West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley, who pressed the EPA chief on why the Obama administration was moving forward with economically-damaging regulations that do nothing for the environment.

The new president sure has a big swamp to drain in the EPA alone.

Martin A, I sure hope you are right. Bringing the EPA back from its wild irresponsibility phase, and removing many of its initiatives, would be a great step forward.

On the general theme this thread, there is a short, and very readable paper mentioned on today's GreenieWatch which I would like to commend to all who come by this way. Here is an extract:

Due to this incessant “consensus” groupthink, apparently fueled by well-funded media, driven by vested interest billionaires, society will not be able to address the need to prepare for possible cooling or to respond with climate adaptations to better manage other natural or human-caused, dramatic climate changes. The reality of cyclical climate change from warming to cooling and back again is obvious based on human historical and empirical scientific evidence, but the public is not psychologically prepared for the eventuality of a cooling cycle when indoctrinated to think all 97% of ‘all’ scientists agree “…it is warming…and your fault.”

The paper can be downloaded for free here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2887245

The author, Michelle Stirling, digs into the sorry ethics of the 97% brigade, in particular those of Cook et al. (2016). She concludes they are, in my words, pretty dire. Gotta agree with that.

Of all the degrading crap that has come from the voices of CO2 alarmists, this piece in the New York Times is down there, deep in the gutter. This is utterly revolting: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-krist

Hat-tip Climate Depot, where some basic data is linked-to to refute a core presumption of that sickening piece of writing and video-making: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/08/no-joke-actual-ny-times-headline-as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it/

I am not superstitious, but if I were, my goodness would I call down a curse on Nicholas Kristof. May he rot in hell.