The Political Contamination of Climate Science

Few scientific efforts have been so dramatically ruined by politics as climate science. For over 30 years, thousands of climate scientists have pushed the message that the world is in serious jeopardy because of human-caused climate change. They have signed manifestos saying we are in a “climate emergency” that will lead to “untold suffering,” that humanity is at “code red,” and that life as we know it is “under siege.”

Climate science should have provided us with facts on which we can debate policies.

It is curious, given all these scientists stating all these extreme warnings, that many Americans haven’t paid them a lot of attention. In fact, a Pew poll suggested that although most Americans showed concern about climate change, it is often viewed as comparatively unimportant.

In the words of the Pew survey authors, “[Climate change] is a lower priority than issues such as strengthening the economy and reducing health care costs.” This statement does not seem congruent with a “code red” emergency that suggests life is “under siege.” Why worry about mere health care costs when the world is ending via climate apocalypse?

This incongruent apathy isn’t just a conservative thing. That same Pew survey also found that although Republicans are more likely than Democrats to have negative attitudes towards climate change, climate science skepticism can nonetheless be found on both sides. What accounts for this bipartisan doubt? (READ MORE from Lucian G. Conway: Can We Please Give Philadelphia to New Jersey?)

The answer is easy: Climate science isn’t viewed as especially scientific. It is instead viewed as political.

Nothing makes people distrust sources of information like the belief that they are over-politicized. For example, recent research by Clark and colleagues shows that people distrust institutions they view as overly politicized, even when they agree with the political goals of the institutions. Even liberals distrust over-politicized liberal institutions.

No movement has cannibalized its own credibility with political contamination quite like climate science. Our lab’s research in the Journal of Environmental Psychology showed that a primary predictor of why people oppose climate change policies is that they think the claimed “97% scientific consensus” around climate change represents political agendas more than scientific fact. Americans began to suspect that the scientific consensus isn’t really a consensus about science at all.

Is this because the American public is anti-science? No. It is because climate scientists themselves insisted on blurring the lines between provable scientific facts and a far-left political agenda.

For example, in the original 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity — a document signed by over 1,700 academics that became a manifesto for climate science — scientists listed five things we “must” do. Number five is instructive: “We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.”

Whatever you think about those issues, it is noteworthy that on the surface they don’t have anything specific to do with the science of climate change. They don’t tell us facts or base conclusions on those facts. Instead, at least 20 percent of the recommendations signed by all those scientists were fundamentally political.

And it isn’t getting better. In the manifesto version updated in 2022, scientists claim that the original 1972 version was abhorrently too politically conservative, noting that the original “is a narrative rooted in colonialism and racism, and current-day unjust and inequitable socioeconomic systems.”

I’m not sure what that has to do with climate science — and that’s the point. Right now, this doesn’t strike me (or a lot of Americans) as especially about science, but rather about a giant political package that we’re required to accept whole or else be decried as heretics.

Science and Political Power

If climate scientists were only promoting an abstract political ideology, we could perhaps afford to dismiss this state of things with a sigh. But their political positions often push for extreme action. They want to make us use less fuel and eat less meat. They want to control the number of kids we have. They don’t want us to care about economic growth. Even if climate scientists prove to be right about some of the down-stream consequences of human activity — and I’m still open to that possibility — that uncertain outcome must be weighed against the costs of their proposed policies. (READ MORE: The Curious Case of Conservative Happiness)

Like the farmers protesting green policies in Europe, I see the costs of these policies with my own eyes in the present. Those costs seem far more certain than the vague uncertain outcomes pitched by the climate-science crowd. As a result, what we really need is a truly balanced discussion of climate policies that weighs the known real costs against the potential gains. With climate scientists, we generally get instead a lot of simple-minded political propaganda as a substitute for serious scientific thought.

Climate science should have provided us with facts on which we can debate policies. Instead, it took an axe to the scaffolding of scientific credibility that held it upright, and we’re all worse off as a result

https://spectator.org/the-political-contamination-of-climate-science/

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

The Texas Billionaire Who Could Bankrupt Greenpeace USA

Fossil-fuel billionaire Kelcy Warren is about to land a knockout punch on Greenpeace

The pipeline magnate’s company, Energy Transfer is behind a lawsuit that Greenpeace says could bankrupt the environmental group’s U.S. affiliate.

A courtroom victory, which some Greenpeace officials fear is likely, would be a coda in the nearly decadelong battle between the two sides over one of Warren’s signature projects: the Dakota Access Pipeline.

In 2016, Greenpeace, Native American tribal groups and thousands of other activists camped in a remote corner of North Dakota to block the project.

The monthslong protests impeded the oil pipeline’s completion and became a flashpoint in the fight over ‘fossil fuels’. Images of sometimes violent confrontations between protesters and law enforcement made international news.

Warren ultimately completed the pipeline, but the fight wasn’t over for him.

Warren sees green activists, who he once said should be “removed from the gene pool,” as a serious threat to the industry. Starting with protests of Keystone XL, which successfully derailed that project, activists have targeted pipelines across the country.

“Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people,” Warren said in a 2017 TV interview. “But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re gonna pay for it.”

Now the pugnacious tycoon, who is valued at more than $7 billion, is within spitting distance of dealing a serious blow to Greenpeace—and the U.S. green movement.

Energy Transfer’s lawsuit alleges several Greenpeace entities incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and its project.

The case is set for trial in February in a North Dakota state court, where both sides expect a ‘fossil-fuel’-friendly jury. Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages, which would likely wipe out Greenpeace USA, according to the group’s leadership.

Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s acting co-executive director, said the lawsuit is “an existential threat” to the group.

In court papers, Greenpeace says it played a limited role in the protests, which it says were organized by Native American groups, and never took part in any property destruction or violence.

The litigation is unlikely to affect Greenpeace’s international operations. While the Greenpeace network’s coordinating body in the Netherlands is also a defendant, Energy Transfer may struggle to enforce any award against it because it doesn’t own assets in the U.S.

But Greenpeace says losing its affiliate—and influence—in the U.S. would have a profound impact on the group’s ability to address ‘climate change’.

Environmental leaders fear the demise of Greenpeace USA would send a chilling message to their movement. Josh Galperin, an associate professor of law at Pace University, said that environmentalists have long recognized that they can choke off pipelines by challenging them on legal grounds.

Now, some oil-and-gas companies are realizing they can use litigation to stop ‘green’ activists.

Warren declined an interview request. “We support the rights of all Americans to lawfully protest and express their opinions,” an Energy Transfer spokeswoman said. “However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that.”

In the sedate world of pipelines—a low-risk, fee-based business—Warren stands out for his aggressive style. Since co-founding Energy Transfer in 1996, he has snagged one competitor after another and built one of the largest pipeline firms in the U.S., with about 125,000 miles of oil and gas lines and related assets and a market capitalization of roughly $55 billion.

His success has afforded him a $46.5-million ranch in Colorado, a castle-like home in Dallas, and a private island in Honduras, where visitors can ride a zip line over a lagoon and nearby sharks.

Warren has also emerged as a key oil industry supporter for Donald Trump. He co-hosted a May fundraiser in Houston for the former president, and he and his wife have contributed more than $20 million to Trump’s presidential runs since 2016.

Warren’s congenial demeanor belies his drive, his friends say. When he and Marshall McCrea, Energy Transfer’s current co-chief executive, were preparing to run the Athens marathon in Greece, Warren warned the executive he would beat him—despite only sporadic training. On race day, he finished ahead of McCrea.

“He enjoys business so very much because he sees it as a game,” said Charlie Waters, a former Dallas Cowboys football player who worked at Warren’s company. “He’s so damn competitive.”

The son of a Sun Oil Co. employee, Warren grew up in East Texas and was a pole vaulter in high-school. After graduating from the University of Texas at Arlington with a civil engineering degree, he got a job at a pipeline company.

Following the demise of Enron, Warren bought thousands of miles of pipelines. The shale boom, which saw scrappy drillers in Texas, Pennsylvania and North Dakota scramble for steel tubes to ship their product in, made the conduits hot property, and further whetted his appetite: Between 2011 and 2014, Energy Transfer splurged more than $12 billion on deals.

While his stature in the industry grew, Warren remained largely unknown to the broader public.

That changed in the spring of 2016.

That year, protesters descended on North Dakota to try to block the Dakota Access project, a nearly 1,200-mile pipeline designed to ferry about 570,000 barrels of crude from the Bakken Shale field to Illinois.

Native American leaders said the $3.8 billion pipeline threatened sacred sites and posed a drinking-water risk.

The protests saw a number of clashes between authorities and activists. At one point, law enforcement trained water cannons on protesters in freezing temperatures. President Trump ultimately reversed a decision by President Obama halting the pipeline and, after years of litigation, it was completed.

In Warren’s view, Greenpeace was largely to blame for a construction delay he said cost the company millions of dollars, and Energy Transfer sued the group for $300 million under a law created to prosecute the mafia that could allow the company to claim triple that amount.

When a federal judge dismissed the suit, the company filed a new one in a North Dakota state court.

Greenpeace says that it only played a supporting role in the protests, and that the lawsuit, which alleges the group spread false claims about Dakota Access, is an attack on free speech.

It has paid for radio ads in Dallas, where Warren lives, that say, “This is America, we all have a right to speak—but Energy Transfer disagrees.”

“That sets a really dangerous precedent no matter who you are or what your politics are,” said Greenpeace USA’s Padmanabha.

Energy Transfer’s claim has caught the attention of high-ranking Democrats. “Energy Transfer’s $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace shows how megacorporations deploy legal strategies to strong-arm and crush their critics,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.), who has introduced legislation to establish a procedure to dismiss and deter strategic lawsuits against public participation.

The lawsuit has thrown Greenpeace USA, which has been active since the 1970s, into turmoil. It is preparing contingency plans for a number of scenarios, including a bankruptcy.

The group’s leadership and the board have clashed over what would constitute an acceptable settlement with Energy Transfer, according to people familiar with the matter.

The lawsuit poses its own risks for Warren. Some oil-and-gas investors expressed concerns about the claim, saying it makes the industry look vindictive and could result in a reinvigorated protest movement.

But people close to him say that Warren, who has gone to the mat with competitors and critics alike, isn’t the kind to lay down arms.

“You’re not going to wear Kelcy Warren out, I can promise you that,” said Matthew Ramsey, a director on Energy Transfer’s board. “He will fight to the bitter end.”

https://principia-scientific.com/the-texas-billionaire-who-could-bankrupt-greenpeace-usa/

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

Multiple Media Outlets Claim Antarctica Seeing A ‘Heatwave’

Various media outlets have recently claimed Antarctia is seeing record high temperatures. Some have even described it as a ‘heatwave’ and claimed 70F above usual

SciTechDaily, CNN and The Economic Times all of course blamed these ‘record’ temperatures on ‘climate change’, when nothing could be further from the truth.

A peer-reviewed paper published on July 31st this year described these events in the abstract thus:

Record high temperatures were documented in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica, on 18 March 2022, exceeding average temperatures for that day by nearly 30°C.

Satellite imagery and stream gage measurements indicate that surface wetting coincided with this warming more than 2 months after peak summer thaw and likely exceeded thresholds for rehydration and activation of resident organisms that typically survive the cold and dry conditions of the polar fall in a freeze-dried state.

This weather event is notable in both the timing and magnitude of the warming and wetting when temperatures exceeded 0°C at a time when biological communities and streams have typically entered a persistent frozen state.

Such events may be a harbinger of future climate conditions characterized by warmer temperatures and greater thaw in this region of Antarctica, which could influence the distribution, activity, and abundance of sentinel taxa.

Here we describe the ecosystem responses to this weather anomaly reporting on meteorological and hydrological measurements across the region and on later biological observations from Canada Stream, one of the most diverse and productive ecosystems within the McMurdo Dry Valleys.

Notice the words ‘for that day’, ‘weather event’, ‘may’ and ‘could’.

In other words, the temperature at four locations went above zero for ONE DAY, before dropping to BELOW what is usual for that time of year for several days, then returning to ‘normal’.

As usual, none of the MSM articles that covered it bothered to mention that fact.

All four locations were in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, one of the coldest and driest places on the planet.

Notice the paper calls it a weather anomaly and a weather event, not a change in the climate, and says this may be an indication of a future climatic state that could affect resident organisms.

That is pure speculation, and probably had to be included by the authors to avoid the paper being rejected by the reviewers.

The paper can be seen here agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com, with the title ‘Response of a Terrestrial Polar Ecosystem to the March 2022 Antarctic Weather Anomaly‘

By the time it came to the attention of the mainstream media, a ‘weather anomaly’ had morphed into ‘climate change’.

CNN carried an article on August 3rd this year with the headline ‘‘Astonishing’ Antarctica heat wave sends temperatures 50 degrees above normal‘

Two days later, The Economic Times carried an article entitled ‘Antarctica’s record heat wave: A threat to global sea levels and ice integrity‘

SciTechDaily seemed unaware of it until September 6th, with the headline ‘Earth’s Last Frontier Burns: Record-Breaking Heat Strikes Antarctica in Winter‘

All three of these articles completely ignored what the paper actually said, and automatically blamed this ‘heatwave’ on us.

None of them carried a link to the paper.

You can see the temperature spike does not qualify as being a ‘heatwave’ as it occurred for just one day.

The British Met Office describes a heatwave as being three consecutive days above the average temperatures for the time of year.

It should not be forgotten that for decades, a heatwave was seven consecutive days above the average for the UK, then about ten years ago it was reduced to three days, allowing people to claim heatwaves are becoming more common.

The American NOAA website describes a heatwave as being the same, but for just two days, which allows for even more propaganda.

The most annoying part is despicable reporting is that the indoctrinated and the gullible will believe these lies without question, and will be totally unaware of the existence of the published paper, let alone what it actually says.

The three alarmist articles also fail to mention that the following year; 2023, saw Antarctic tempertures in July and August much colder than usual, as reported by us here.

https://principia-scientific.com/multiple-media-outlets-claim-antarctica-seeing-a-heatwave/

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

CBS Gets the Facts Wrong About Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Trends

A recent broadcast weather segment on CBS News, Los Angeles, titled “Helene gaining strength from climate change effects,” features a staff meteorologist claiming that hurricane Helene was strengthened by climate change, and that indeed hurricanes in general are increasing in intensity and power. This is false. It is actually shocking how wrong CBS is with regards to what actual hurricane data show, which is that hurricanes are not getting more intense, frequent, or powerful.

The CBS video description reads “…Helene is gaining strength from warmer waters in the Gulf of Mexico, an effect linked to climate change that appears to make hurricanes and storms more powerful.”

The CBS anchor hands the segment over to meteorologist Marina Jurica, who alleges that “the increasing intensity of hurricanes is basically rooted in physics… hurricanes draw energy from that warm ocean water and as that climate change causes sea surface temperatures to rise the energy available for these storms increases.”

It is true that warm sea surface temperatures contribute to hurricane formation, However, they are far from the only element, and in fact for most of this hurricane season, despite warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures, storms struggled to form at all.

Jurica asserts the usual claim that warm water causes stronger winds and more moisture which causes heavier rainfall, “one of the most significant effects of climate change is its impact on hurricane intensity… which is why we’re seeing more catastrophic flooding associated with all of these recent storms.” The anchor went on to assert that hurricanes have been more intense in recent years and “the level of the storms is rising,” and Jurica added that “over the last several decades storms are moving slower” using Harvey as an example of this effect. Most of these claims are made out of whole cloth, complete nonsense.

Starting with the Hurricane Harvey anecdote, when the storm hit Texas in 2017, it was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since 2005, after a 12-year major hurricane drought in one of the most active tropical storm regions in the world. The longest such major hurricane drought since records have been kept in the United States.

Jurica claims in the CBS clip that Harvey was stalled and dumped more water on Texas because of global warming causing more moisture in the air, and while it is true that the precipitation was unprecedented for the area, reality shows that it was cooler-than-normal trough that stalled the storm out over Houston. Stalled storms are not new, as pointed out by professional meteorologist and hurricane-historian Joe Bastardi here. As a meteorologist herself it was Jurica’s job to look this up before going on live television.

No measured hurricane data supports the claim that hurricanes have been becoming more intense. This is only found flawed computer model outputs.

Publicly available data record no trend in increasing frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or elsewhere around the globe. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a metric used to track the overall strength of tropical cyclones over time, and if anything, the data here presented by Dr. Ryan Maue suggest they have been getting less powerful since the 1990s.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees, stating that there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”

The CBS broadcast was before Helene made landfall, and while hurricane Helene proved to be very destructive, it is not unprecedented. Past hurricanes have likewise caused significant flooding and wind and tornado damage well inland in the Appalachians and surrounding regions, such as hurricane Gracie in 1959 which made landfall in South Carolina as a Category 4, during which 13 people died in Virginia due to tornados. There are many other examples, the most damaging of which was the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900, a category 4 storm which took between 6,000 and 12,000 lives, most due to storm surge and flooding.

Every major storm involving loss of life and property is a tragedy, and they need to be taken seriously, which is why it is so appalling when the mainstream media takes advantage of peoples’ fear preceding dangerous storms, and their losses and misery following them, in order to make false claims about climate change. CBS’s meteorologist is either shockingly poorly informed about hurricane data or just doesn’t care about facts, despite her training as a meteorologist.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/10/cbs-gets-the-facts-wrong-about-hurricane-helene-and-hurricane-trends/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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