Angry Warmist goes racist

Being white is part of what he condemns. His article is titled: "How do you solve a problem like conservative white men?" I reproduce a few excerpts below. I have not reproduced any of the psychologizing as it is mere assertion with no foundation in research among skeptics. An interesting admission is in red below. In the end all he can think of to do is abuse and physical attack -- in the best Fascist style

Kicking ass. The most satisfying solution? Kick their asses! The other day, I wrote about a study that attempted to explain why conservative white men (CWM) are so loathe to accept the threat of climate change.

The question remains: What should we do about it? The denialism or indifference of CWM toward climate is a huge barrier to getting anything done. In this post, I'm going to argue that the typical strategies are doomed to failure. It may be that the simplest, least clever strategy -- kick their asses -- is still the way to go.

The original and still most popular approach to dealing with climate deniers is reasoned persuasion: facts and figures and reports and literature reviews and slideshows and whitepapers. This hasn't ever really worked, but climate types keep trying, like American tourists in a foreign country who try to overcome the language barrier by talking louder and more slowly.

While the study postulated a lot of interesting things about CWM, one thing it didn't ascribe to them is ignorance. In fact, the CWM who know the most about climate science are the most likely to reject the consensus account. And this isn't a new finding. Yale's "Six Americas" report found that the highly skeptical are more informed about climate change science than those who report a high degree of concern about it (the latter of whom still regularly confuse climate with the ozone hole, etc.).

The fact is, as I've written before, climate denialism is part of something much larger. The most significant driving force behind climate change denial among CWM is not any ineffable psychological mystery but simply the increasing intensity and radicalization of the American conservative movement. The same dynamic afflicting climate change is afflicting the debate over fiscal policy, the economy, jobs, and health care.... The core of the CWM tribal perspective is loyalty to the tribe and hostility to outsiders. [An accusation of racism from a racist!]

CWM are blocking the entire, diverse climate coalition from taking action by virtue of intensity (not to mention a broken and utterly dysfunctional political system). The poll numbers are consistently on climate hawks' side, but their support is shallow and fickle. The Tea Party, on the other hand, views even efficient lightbulbs as incipient tyranny. As I've said many times, intensity wins in politics.

If that's true, perhaps the answer is not to reduce intensity in hopes of attracting CWM. Perhaps the answer is to increase intensity in order to overcome CWM. Intensity is increased first and foremost through organizing, but also through clear, inspiring messages that draw sharp lines between those fighting for progress and those fighting against it.

The implicit premise of climate "pragmatism" and similar efforts is that CWM are stronger, that climate hawks can't win a direct clash. And for now, that seems to be true. Beating back the radical conservative resurgence is something that nobody on the left has figured out yet. But the alternative, attempting to win over CWM by soft-pedaling climate, doesn't exactly have a record of success either.

In the end, everyone has to make their own bet. Do you make progress by attempting to please the Very Serious People running the system or by speaking truth to power and subverting the system? For my part, when I see people denying facts and bullying scientists in order perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuel interests that are killing people and threatening my children's futures, I am inclined to tell them to go f*ck themselves. That won't resonate with their social/tribal perspectives, but that's because I find their social/tribal perspectives repugnant and worthy of social censure. I want to beat them. [A lot of hate there]

SOURCE





Warming uncertain says CSIRO scientist

The CSIRO is a major scientific research organization funded by the Australian government

Researchers from the CSIRO and the University of Melbourne analysed the predictions of 23 currently available global climate models using data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, a project that gathers data from around the world to make predictions on changes in world climate.

A statistical tool called a 'probability distribution model' was applied to the projected changes predicted by the models to find what changes would occur at certain levels. These probability distribution functions were scaled to match scenarios of global warming for 2030 and 2070.

Climate predictions then and now

Previous projections by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology in 2007 predicted a temperature increase of at least 1 degree Celsius by 2030. "If emissions are low, we anticipate warming of between 1.5 degree and 2.5 degrees by 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 degrees," Whetton said in 2007. "Under a high emission scenario, the best estimate is 3.4 degrees Celsius with a range between 2.2 to 5.0."

The 2007 report also predicted the effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases on rainfall, showing decreases in overall and seasonal rainfall across Australia in the decades to come.

The new study gives a more solid prediction to the effects of a global climatic shift. If global temperatures increased by 4 degrees Celsius or more, it would result in temperature increases of between 3 degrees and 5 degrees for coastal areas and 4 degrees to 6 degrees for inland Australia, the report shows.

In addition, global climate shifts would affect precipitation patterns, with snow cover falling to zero in most regions across the Australian Alps. More notably, the annual rainfall over southern Australia, particularly in winter and spring, would decrease by up to 50%.

"Unlike anything experienced before"

The combined decrease in rainfall with rising evaporation levels of between 5% and 20%, would lead to droughts occurring up five times more often in the southern regions of Australia, the study said.

"Rapid global warming of 4 degrees Celsius would be unlike anything experienced before by modern human societies - presenting us with huge challenges in our ability to adapt," Whetton said.

Steven Sherwood, an atmospheric physicist and co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said that while the report, "follows a fairly standard methodology" in summarising the predictions of climate models, the estimates "must be taken with a grain of salt" because of the variability between the 23 models. "They don't all predict the same outcome, so a large range can sometimes appear - but this probably represents the best we can do at the moment," he said.

Sherwood continued, "Of course there is no guarantee that the actual outcome will even be within this range, all the models could be off. But if the models are wrong, it is just as likely to be in the direction of underestimating change rather than overestimating it. "Either way, it's better to be safe than sorry and we need to reduce greenhouse emissions now while we still can before it's too late."

SOURCE




Interview with Dr. Eduardo Zorita, August 2011

IPCC scientist makes huge admission: E. Zorita: 'Past variations were probably larger than was originally believed'?

The physicist Eduardo Zorita is a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, where he heads the Paleoclimate Section. In the CliSAP project PLUSDATA, he investigates the effects of climate change on the dynamics of water bodies.

What would you consider the most significant achievement in your career?

For the community, the main contribution I was involved in was the 'discovery' that climate reconstruction based on proxy indicators very likely provides only an underestimation of past climates. This means that past variations were probably larger than was originally believed. Privately, however, my most significant achievement was to switch from solid state physics to climate on my own, so to say, and with the help of the library, located in the 15th floor of the Geomatikum at that time.

Do you see a rising influence of politics or the economy in climate science?

Yes, a bit unfortunately. Climate science fulfills many conditions to become the subject of public discussion and influence. Its results can be waged for immediate political battles of all colors, it is in many ways uncertain, it may have quite serious economic consequences, and finally, like in soccer, everyone has an opinion, since rain, temperature, sea level are all concepts of everyday life. However, to be honest, I vividly remember to have decided to move to climate science after my doctorate because I could read, already at that time, many popular articles about climate change written by climate researchers and aimed at the public in general. With this I mean that it seems to me researchers did take the initiative to address society. Therefore it is not totally surprising that society now responds. Certainly, this response has not been always very kind, but we should not forget that usually the political discussion is a hornet's nest. If you decide to enter that nest you should be prepared.

What constitutes good science?

As I said before, every person and every scientist is different. For instance, some scientists work in a very systematic, detailed way to obtain very accurate measurements. This is good science. Others, on the other hand, are very disorganized, chaotic, but they have the capability to juggle with theories and concepts and see relationships that no one could see before. This is also good science. Finally, others are able to coordinate a large team of scientists in big projects. He or she may not be good at numbers or at theories but can oversee the big picture and move a team towards important results. This is also, in my eyes, good science. Perhaps all of them could be considered as different perspectives of a common effort to fill important gaps in the puzzle of science.

What would be your advice for young researchers who want to work on climate simulations?

Climate modelling is a quite broad and complex area. In my opinion, there are two dangers that a student should avoid. One is to get stuck in a daily routine of programming and launching simulations, and slowly forgetting that simulations are performed to answer some previous question. This question should be the main driver of the work, the model is just a tool. Climate models are nowadays so complex and require so much technical attention that it is easy to get off the track. The second danger is to fall in love with your model and lose sight of the real observations out there. Models are in this sense dangerous and climate models even more so.

What would you do with an additional million Euros for your research?

A million euros is nowadays not much. But to answer your question I would setup a project to understand the behavior of tropical clouds in the Late Maunder Minimum, at the height of the Little Ice Age 300 years ago, from proxy records and model simulations. This could give us hints about cloud cover changes in climates a bit different from the present and thus help us say something about the future climate change.

SOURCE






FINGERS IN PIES...

There is an amusing side to this. "Green" investments are based on false assumptions so will probably go broke. And that will take the retirement funds of the BBC staffers with it

Guess what? The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in 'climate change' schemes. He's called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the œ8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about 'ethical investments', is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible:

The IIGCC Investor Statement on Climate change was launched in October 2006. Asset owners and asset managers who signed the Statement committed to increasing their focus on climate change in their own processes and in their engagement with companies and governments.

So now we really know why BBC staffers are so fanatical about 'climate change'. It's naked self-interest. In 2008, there were 18,736 contributors to the BBC pension fund; every man jack of them benefits from climate alarmism.

Update: I've been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC's news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed.

SOURCE





Obama's war on coal

Killing jobs, causing blackouts

President Obama claims to see the need to create jobs at this time of endless 9-plus percent unemployment -- yet his administration continues to relentlessly destroy jobs for ideological reasons. The best example may be the Obama Environmental Protection Agency's "war on coal."

The EPA's regulatory crusade directly threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs -- and "rolling blackouts" that threaten even more.

Start with a proposed regulation under the Clean Air Act that's set to be finalized in November. The Utility MACT ("Maximum Achievable Control Technology") rule seeks to cut US power plants' emissions of mercury from 29 tons a year to just five. Yet EPA itself estimates that cutting even as much as 41 tons out of total emissions of 105 tons "is unlikely to substantially affect total risk."

For zero benefit, the Utility MACT is one of the most expensive federal regulations ever. In comments submitted to the EPA, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an alliance of unions representing more than 3.2 million workers, estimated that this needless regulation would jeopardize 251,000 jobs.

Then there's EPA's out-of-the-blue ruling last month, ordering Texas to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide by 47 percent. This, when the draft version of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule had exempted the state entirely. The excuse for the change? A supposed need to slightly reduce emissions as monitored 500 miles away in Madison County, Ill. -- a locale that meets the EPA air-quality standards in question.

And the EPA only gave Texas just six months to comply -- when it takes three years to build the necessary controls. Particularly hard-hit will be Luminant, the largest merchant power producer in Texas, which relies on high-sulfur coal: It says "curtailing plant and/or mine operations will be the only option" to meet the EPA's "unprecedented and impossible compliance timetable." Jonathan Gardner, a vice president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, warns that the rule directly threatens 1,500 employees at six different power plants across Texas.

The EPA is also attacking coal mining, by (for example) trying to stop the technique known as mountaintop removal. Endless environmentalist lawsuits have lost in the courts, but the Obama EPA now claims that salt runoff from the process violates the Clean Water Act because it harms a short-lived insect (not an endangered species) -- and has proposed a rule that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concedes would effectively outlaw an industry that employs more than 15,000 miners in Appalachia.

These are just a few examples of a host of unjustified EPA measures targeted at coal. The obvious goal is to seize any excuse to make coal power more expensive -- eventually, as then-candidate Barack Obama put it to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008, to "bankrupt" the coal industry.

Yet coal has long been the most affordable source of electricity generation in America; it provides almost 50 percent of this nation's power. Team Obama's actions guarantee higher US electricity prices -- which will push up the costs of every business in America.

That means more lost jobs. A recent report from the Edison Electric Institute found that the Obama administration's air-quality policies alone could force the retirement of up to 90,000 megawatts of coal power, and require $200 billion in retrofits by 2020.

The loss of that much power production makes brownouts and "rolling blackouts" a virtual certainty in some regions of the country -- notably, the industrial heartland.

Bottom line: For the sake of the US economy, Congress needs to put an end to Obama's war on coal.

SOURCE





Global warming is melting Al Gore's brain

Former veep's only defense of his bogus climate theory is potty language

Al Gore, the world's foremost pseudo- scientist, is blasting skeptical scientists for their adherence to the centuries-old scientific method. Having tested the man-made global warming hypothesis with empirical observations, many scientists have come to different conclusions, causing Mr. Gore to become the Lenny Bruce of the environmental extremist gang. Speaking at the Aspen Institute on Aug. 4, Mr. Gore blasted alternative climate-change theories, publicly labeling them "bulls-t" - his words, not mine.

Having already "invented the Internet," Mr. Gore has moved on to more important things like inventing a new scientific method. Mr. Gore's pseudo-scientific method must mean politically correct agendas always trump independent peer testing. If your scientific results contradict the politically correct consensus, you are a denier of a higher truth and your proof that his theories are false is bull (to use a more polite version).

Before Mr. Gore's reliance on make-believe catastrophic climate model results, we were stuck with the good old scientific method, which says if the hypothesis cannot stand up to comparison with real, empirical observations, the hypothesis is false. Albert Einstein championed that test. Mr. Gore is abandoning it now because the test proves his "man-made CO2 is causing global climate change" hypothesis to be false.

Mr. Gore laments the fact that empirical observations are contradicting the "shared reality" he covets on his carefully chosen cocktail circuit. According to him, "It is no longer acceptable in mixed company - meaning bipartisan company - to use the goddamn word climate." Pity.

For Mr. Gore, any notion that our world is one of constant change is bull. Well, Mr. Gore, with 18 or 20 natural climate drivers constantly at work, there is no way Earth can have a stable climate. There have been no flat lines on any temperature curve in the reconstructions of 500 million years of climate-CO2 relationships. How about the sun or major ocean currents that experience changing cycles? Well, is that just bull, too? Is anything that conflicts with the belief that man is the primary cause of climate change just more bull? My, what a dirty mouth our former veep has.

With all of Mr. Gore's voiced confidence in his hypothesis, why won't he debate the issue if he is certain that "the science is settled"? Here's why: Fifteen of his major points in his 2006 film, "An Inconvenient Truth," have been shown to be false, misleading or gross exaggerations. As long as many blindly follow him despite all of this, his best strategy is to remain off the debate circuit.

The problem with Mr. Gore's new pseudo-scientific dogma is, of course, what's at stake. Lenny Bruce was a comedian. Mr. Gore isn't a comedian, as funny as he may appear. For some odd reason people still listen to him and he commands influence over national and global public policy. If he has his way, his man-made global warming agenda will melt our economy, our standard of living and even our national security.

Right now, the only thing global warming is melting is Al Gore's brain.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here

*****************************************