A global warming sucker on Daily Kos

Below are a few excerpts from an article headed "Michael Mann is a Modern Hero and we need to acknowledge that!".  The author appears to be an (uncapitalized) don mikulecky.  He sounds just like the old Soviet admirers I used to know in the days of the USSR.  Like the old Communists, he knows the truth but refuses to believe it -- as you will see from the excerpt below.  He quotes an accurate summary of how Mann has been criticized but does he show where the criticisms are wrong on the facts?  Not at all.  His only answer is to brand it all as "lies" and invoke a conspiracy theory.

And he doesn't even know his own case well.  His point No. 1 below was contradicted in the latest attempt (by Marcott et al.) to resurrect the hockey stick.   I quote from the Marcott paper:  "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history".  In other words, the temperature now is COOLER than it has been.

What a pathetic old thicko don is! He has just read Michael Mann's self-serving book and swallowed it whole!

You can google your heart out and you will find garbage like this

First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the “smoking gun” of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues. This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his “Hockey Stick” come under severe scrutiny. The “hockey stick” was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick.”

 This is but one example of the lies and deceit out there on the web.  These blogs and postings are part of a coordinated effort financed by the oils and coal industries, among others, linked into a right wing dominated set of publications and news channels.
Mann describes the way they work.  It is something that makes the Nazi propaganda machine look primitive.  To counter this, without the massive amounts of funding the deniers have, Mann created RealClimate, a blog where rapid responses to the lies and organized attacks could be countered.

Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (so the temperature history looks like a Hockey Stick).

2. Michael Mann, the lead author on the original Hockey Stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.

We know these things because both the Hockey Stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist.

SOURCE





The Greenies even misrepresented Carson

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace but now much more skeptical, offers the following quote from his book:

"And it turns out that right from the start, extremist interpretations of Rachel Carson’s writings from the early 1960s were responsible for these millions of unnecessary deaths. On page 12 of Silent Spring, she states clearly, “It is not my contention that chemical insecticides should never be used.” Rather she argued against their “indiscriminate” and “unchecked” use. This was reasonable seeing that at the time thousands of tons of DDT were being aerially sprayed on millions of acres of farmland, with little regard for their impact on water, wildlife, or even non-target insects. It was not Rachel Carson who was unreasonable, but rather the extremists who used her writings to further a zero-tolerance agenda in their efforts to obtain political power on the back of what should have been a more sensible, balanced environmental and health agenda.

If you search the Internet for “Rachel Carson, malaria,” you will find hundreds of recent websites accusing her of genocide and mass murder and comparing her to Hitler and Stalin. I’m thankful she is not alive to see this undeservedly harsh backlash. I hope her descendants and friends have thick skins."

Via email




A Greenie lie from Australia

Opposition to the proposed natural gas processing hub near James Price Point  in Northern West Australia,  was NOT widespread in the area concerned.  

A DAY after Woodside's decision to abandon its $40 billion Kimberley gas plan and a month after Colin Barnett's emphatic win in the west, a key tenet of an extraordinary environmental campaign can be exposed for what it always was - a great Green lie.

The battle over Woodside's facility at James Price Point was turned into middle Australia's cause celebre by rock stars and Green royalty such as Missy Higgins, John Butler and Bob Brown.

While environmentalists will today be celebrating news that Woodside has all but walked away from the proposal, they can't escape the election result that should finally kill the false notion that the majority of Kimberley residents - including thousands of indigenous Australians - did not want the project to go ahead.

Consider this: in the lead-up to the March 9 election the Greens threw everything they had at the remote seat vacated by Labor's retiring Carol Martin, the first indigenous woman to be elected to an Australian parliament.

Martin, along with the Kimberley Land Council, the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre, and the Kimberley Language and Resource Centre, which represents the 29 tribal groups across the region, backed the project because they believed it would break the cycle of indigenous welfare dependency, particularly in tourist town Broome, and create jobs.

Year after year organisations and identities such as Environs Kimberley, WWF Australia, the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation claimed the majority of locals did not want the project in their backyard (despite it being 60km north of Broome) and that the original consenting vote among traditional owners was somehow corrupt. However, three of the four parties - the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor - supported James Price Point. The Greens, standing alone, made no apologies for their stance.

Liberal Jenny Bloom picked up 25.7 per cent of the primary vote, Michele Pucci of the Nationals 18.4 per cent, Labor's Josie Farrer 26.7 per cent and the Greens' Chris Maher secured 23.5 per cent. So seven out of 10 people eligible to vote supported a party that wanted the project to go ahead. That is about as comprehensive a vote of support as any proponent of the development could wish for.

The green rhetoric that worked so effectively in the faraway east had the complete opposite effect closer to the action in the west.

According to Newspoll, Green support slowly evaporated, from 12 to 8 per cent, as their Kimberley campaign evolved in the six months to March. On election day they were punished and now hold just one (upper house) seat in the WA parliament, down from five a few years ago.

While Woodside says the green campaign had little to do with its latest announcement, it's hard not to think that in some way it did.

As for the Greens, they must decide whether their role was worth their current political irrelevancy. And the wishes of the local indigenous population for a brighter future have again been shattered.

SOURCE




Wood heater link to heart, lung diseases

But it's "sustainable"

Hundreds of thousands of Australians are endangering their health by the regular use of wood heaters at home.

About 1 million homes regularly use wood-burning heaters, despite links to heart and lung disease. Health and environment experts are calling on the federal government to better regulate their use.

In a submission to a Senate inquiry into the impact of air quality on health, a Launceston lung specialist, James Markos, said there was no safe threshold for the fine particle pollution that resulted from wood-burning heaters, just as there was no safe threshold for exposure to tobacco smoke.

Along with irritating existing conditions such as asthma and emphysema, studies had found that prolonged exposure to wood smoke was an "important environmental risk factor" in fatal heart or lung disease or lung cancer, he said.

At particular risk were those with lung disease, children, older people and those who lived in valleys, where smoke could get trapped.

The inquiry, which holds its first hearing on Tuesday, comes as the Council of Australian Governments environment council released a discussion paper on national action to reduce emissions from wood heaters.

According to the paper, wood heater emissions are a "significant" contributor to particle pollution in Australia during winter. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found 10 per cent of homes used wood heaters as the main source of heat. This adds up to about 1.1 million wood heaters around the country, with about 25,000 new ones sold each year.

While state governments and local councils have introduced schemes to reduce wood heater emissions and a review of the Australian standards for emissions is now under way, an Edith Cowan University adjunct professor, John Todd, has told the inquiry a national taskforce was needed.

The environment consultant argued that there had been little change in wood heater technology for 30 years, and the government should invest in research to produce cleaner-burning heaters. "This is a national problem," Dr Todd said.

The Australian Medical Association said the "big issue" was that the exact impact of wood smoke on health was not being measured. Its president, Steve Hambleton, said that even though average air quality was monitored in Australia, it needed to be checked in specific pockets.

The Australian Home Heating Association already has a proposal to change the national standard for wood heaters, to reduce the particulate matter per kilogram of wood burnt, from 4 grams to 2.5 grams. General manager Demi Brown said owners could also minimise smoke if they used their heaters correctly.

Ms Brown said that governments needed to better enforce compliance standards for wood heaters. She said her organisation had notified state environmental protection authorities several times about heaters for sale that were not certified, or that differed from their certified design. They received no reply or follow-up, she said.

But she noted that wood heating emitted fewer greenhouse gases than other forms of home heating, and provided a warmth no other energy source could rival.

Parliamentary secretary for sustainability Amanda Rishworth said the government was participating in the inquiry and would respond to its findings.

SOURCE






'Trust Us, Skeptics Are Crooks'

By Russell Cook

One of the most overlooked aspects of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (AGW) issue is the way it defends its science conclusions by saying nobody offers valid scientific critiques.  The science is settled.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is branded an anti-science heretic, with the mere mention of the words "skeptic climate scientists" bringing on withering accusations about skeptics being paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue.

Notice the problem there?  We have an unsupported assertion about settled science, and adjectives about skeptics that are impossible to misinterpret -- "invalid," "anti-science," "heretic," "corrupt," "liar."

This fault becomes impossible to miss in an analogy any ordinary citizen can understand:

Imagine yourself at an informal car show, where you stop alongside another fellow to admire a pretty blue '80s-era sports car.  The owner sees your interest and exclaims, "This is an extremely rare 1983 Corvette.  You probably won't see any others in your lifetime."  But the other fellow scoffs, "This is probably no older than an '84 model.  GM made over 50,000 of 'em that year.  There's plenty of discussion among auto experts about this."

Corvette owner's option #1 reply: "Don't listen to this guy.  He worked at the Dodge trucks division in the late 1960s, he knows nothing about Chevys, he hasn't written any articles in Chevy or Corvette magazines, and in fact, he belongs to groups associated with people who advocate new technology over preserving automotive cultural icons.  He's an anti-history nut who would wipe out every junkyard on the planet.  Look at the organizations he's associated with, which get money from new-tech industries.  They channel money to people like him so he can spew anti-automotive history propaganda!  Despite what he says, every car collector organization in the country agrees that any 1983 Corvette is extremely rare, and they are all unanimous on our need to rise up and protect our history against these deniers of our heritage!  We need to have a national discussion on preserving our history, and anyone who doesn't agree with this is an ignorant anti-history zealot who'd scrap any car more than ten years old!"

Option #2: "I understand the gentleman's assumption.  GM made only 43 of these; supposedly all were scrapped after being officially used only by the factory.  It's said that the only 1983 unit in existence is at the National Corvette Museum, which had been hidden for years, but I have verified information to prove that this was a second hidden one, and I will be more than glad to compare notes with this gentleman in order to establish this one as genuine.  And I openly invite anyone else to prove me wrong, because I want to be absolutely certain that what I claim is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Swap out the Corvette in this situation for man-caused global warming, swap the doubter for skeptic climate scientists, swap the owner for AGW promoters, and swap yourself into the shoes of the bystander listening to the #1 reply.

Your automatic reaction should be, "Wait a minute.  That other fellow said your car is probably not a 1983.  You never disputed what he said.  Why did you respond with this diatribe?"

That reaction has been missing from the global warming issue.  Almost from the inception of the issue, it has been suggested the matter was closed and that skeptics had questionable motives when they criticized the idea of the phenomenon being largely driven by human-induced greenhouse gases.

A particular phrase from physicist John Droz's recent Science Under Assault presentation to North Carolina legislators succinctly captures the problem.  To fully comprehend the science of anything we see, we must understand that "real science is about adjudicating the facts, not casting aspersions on the source."

As common citizens without science expertise, the majority of us are forced to leave the debate over the actual causes of global warming to the scientists.  But we can participate in another process -- namely, finding out for ourselves whether the narratives about the issue and its scientists ring true.  Examples include whether a commonly heard description about skeptics being "climate deniers" is true, when elemental examinations of skeptic reports indicate that it's more accurate to say they dispute that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conclusively made the case for human-induced greenhouse gases being the primary driver of global warming.

Thus, what explains the "denier" label when the mere presence of some degree of global warming is not being disputed by the skeptics?

Worse, there is the accusation about skeptic scientists being crooks.

In the time between 1991 and late 1995, a few book references and magazine/newspaper articles suggested that skeptic scientists were out to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)" at the behest of the coal industry, supposedly proven by a leaked memo with that implied exact instruction.

Then ex-Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan publicly re-emerged in December 1995, more or less simultaneously with his infamous Harper's magazine "The Heat Is On" article, and in an NPR "Living on Earth" radio show interview.  In the latter, he reworded the memo phrase as "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."  Each event is a case study on mimicking the "Corvette owner's option #1 reply" tactic above.

From that point forward, luminaries such as Al Gore credited Gelbspan as a Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist who discovered and exclusively exposed the "reposition global warming" memo and other associated leaked memos, which were "evidence" of a fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign reminiscent of the way the tobacco industry employed "shill experts" to confuse the public about the hazards of cigarette smoking.  However, detailed examination of publicly available information instead points out the following: others wrote briefly about the memos before Gelbspan did, including Gore; the Pulitzer organization does not recognize Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner; in 1995 he hadn't been working as a journalist for years; and when the otherwise hard-to-find memos are read in their full context, they appear to be nothing more than inter-office guidelines for conducting a pilot project ad campaign.

One more critical point: nobody corroborates the accusation that Gelbspan began to make famous back in late 1995; scores of people only repeat it.

For an issue supposedly rooted in pure science, it's hard to overlook how promoters of man-caused global warming have every appearance of being not only anti-intellectual, but also blatantly anti-science when they want us to unquestioningly ignore an entire side of the issue based on a yet to be proven accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by industry funding.

The elemental question to be asked is, if the media and the public relied on this accusation as an excuse to dismiss skeptics out of hand for nearly twenty years when it was never a valid excuse from the start, how long will this tactic be used before it ends up collapsing the entire global warming ideology?

SOURCE  





EcoFascist ignores the facts

As even Pachauri and Hansen agree, there has been no global warming for around 17 years  -- so the various events our mini-Hitler  invokes CANNOT be due to warming.  But what does he care about that?  What he wants is to "steamroll" people

To paraphrase Hemingway, climate change first comes gradually and then all at once. Now that the negative impacts of changing climate have become undeniable, there is also a dawning realization that—at this point—climate change is unstoppable. This puts into wistful perspective the developing consensus that we should do something about it.  Witness Obama’s bold statement in the State of the Union Address that he is prepared to use executive powers if Congress doesn’t act. A cautious politician, it’s doubtful that he would have been so bold unless he felt that he had the public’s backing. And it’s great—except it’s too late. We’re in for it, and the rash of extreme weather events is giving us a taste of what “it” might be.
Superstorm Sandy

The time to act was at least 25 years ago—back when George H.W. Bush promised to take action (he deep sixed that promise almost immediately after his inauguration). Given the lag in the climate system, the extreme floods, droughts, storms, storm surges, and tornado swarms are partly a response to greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere of past years that we have since exceeded. The accelerating release of the greenhouse methane—the crystal meth of global warming—from the melting permafrost in the warming Arctic will continue regardless of whatever actions the developed nations agree to take in the coming years. It’s quixotic to think that humanity can take any action to reverse the overtaxing of the oceans’ ability to absorb CO2 (evidenced by the seas’ increasing acidity) on any timeframe meaningful to those living today.

The most unsettling thing about the accelerating pace of extreme weather events is that they may signal that even as the momentum in the rise of CO2 makes it difficult to reverse the cause of climate change, we are entering a new period in which change itself comes ever more rapidly. The retreat of the Arctic sea ice shows us how this works. The white surface of sea ice reflects about eight times the heat of open water. So, as the ice retreats, heat that previously was reflected from the surface and trapped below the ice is now absorbed and released, vastly amplifying the pace of change.

So how should we respond? Most obviously, we should stop making things worse. Tax penalties, tax credits, and import tariffs can nudge consumers, producers, and exporters towards reducing emissions without wasting more years on fruitless international negotiations or creating cumbersome new bureaucracies.

Most importantly, we need leaders with the courage to steamroll the deniers and the vested interests.

More HERE

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN.   My Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here and here

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