Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Warmists with redder faces [update 2]

“Growing ice, the mob and red-faced professors: Warmists are having yet another bad week,” says a not unhappy Lawrence Solomon.

There’s bad news from the Arctic and the Antarctic, from organised crime and the fields of censorship, of warmist luminaries like Stephen Schneider and warmist grails like carbon trading. No wonder there’s so many red faces, the reasons for which are all summarised in Solomon’s article, Global Blushing.  But as he concludes,

    “This week of embarrassment for the global warmists does not look all that different from most weeks. Overzealous scientists and their enablers have a habit of selecting the data they like and setting the rest aside. Some — Schneider among them — have even justified exaggerating the dangers in the cause of making the public take note. When they get caught they often resort to obfuscations and cover-ups.
    “And red faces become the norm.”

UPDATE 2: “Warming Uncool” notes Tim Blair’s headline:

“It has finally happened,” writes Marc Morano at the Climate Depot. “We have reached the ‘tipping point.’ 2009 can now be officially declared the year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears.”


  1. ...and even alarmist media, ie the once venerable BBC, are hedging their bets somewhat...

  2. At least the BBC through hedging its bets is signalling that there is doubt.
    Key and Co are not listening at all.
    They prefer doing what the international community (read UN) wants rather than what is good for New Zealand.

  3. if you go to this stuff page:

    you will see there is an article on Patagonia. The short description is:
    "Shaney Hudson witnesses the effects of global warming in Patagonia with a spectacular glacial show. "

    The article doesn't mention climate change or global warming but presumably a picture of some ice breaking of a glacier is enough for the editor to assume this is what the story is about.

    It's insidious isn't it?

  4. A serious question:

    Suppose (just suppose) that you're wrong about about global warming.

    Suppose that the overwhelming majority of scientists studying it are right, and you're wrong.

    How would you know?


  5. Uh, maybe you should go and read the article Salomon claims as his evidence that believers of global warming should be embarrassed.

    It's not anti-AGW at all. It's about the relationship between El Nino, the SAM and melting antarctic ice. That is, it's about small-scale (every few years) oscillations in climate. Yes, oscillations means things go up and down. Yes, adherents to AGW expect it to go up and down like that. No, that's not what the AGW debate is about - it's about big (many-decade-long) long-term upward trends which you can see in the noisy (up and down) data.

    Salomon says the warmists will want to "lash out at" the author of this paper as if it's staggeringly anti-global warming. As usual, when you dig past the anti-AGW editorial and hit the facts that's just piffle. It's just the opposite: the authors are warning that what we're now seeing (in the last year) is the negative-SAM effect and the combination of the positive SAM-effect and overall AGW (plus the slow repair of the ozone hole, with well-known effects) will mean "enhanced snowmelt and subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends."

    Typical AGW-denial: some editorialist mis-represents a research paper, bloggers like PC pick it up without looking at the actual research being quoted. You guys should really take on a skeptical frame of mind and look the facts more, instead of naively believing everything you hear in the anti-AGW echo-chamber.


  6. Icehawk

    Next time you're kneeling to your saviour "The Goricle", make sure you kiss his ring.


  7. As usual LCM has nothing relevant to say so resorts to personal attacks.

    Very good post icehawk!

  8. Icehawk says "Suppose that the overwhelming majority of scientists studying it are right, and you're wrong."

    Let's suppose we're wrong. What should we do? Tax our industry so heavily that it migrates to China? Most manufacturing has already gone, that leaves just argiculture. As it is, more and more of our food (sure, from a small base) comes from China, esp foods like frozen berries.
    Once agriculture is gone, what the fuck do we do to make a living? We can't all be hairdressers and waiters.
    And we'll still have global warming, because some countries will cheat (us and the other westerners) while China, India etal will ignore your enlightened calls to save gaia.

  9. Unless you believed it when the Chinese made noises re their carbon output to the UN the other week?

  10. Barry

    Icehawk was being stupid. Had he bothered to do even a little checking of fact he'd not have posted such an idiotic contribution (his premise is a crude mix of social metaphysics and appeal to "expert" authority).

    Given your intellectual bewilderment and state of confusion (for example, thinking that Harry Potter books are economics texts), you are unlikely to understand the difference between facts of reality (which do not support AGW mythologies) and political cults (such as AGW). That's a pity, since it means you are unlikely to ever grasp the point at issue. You are, of course, yet another believer who spends a lot of time kneeling...



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.