Hallelujah, the Great Storm is Over?

Over at Pointman’s, he has published another powerful, intense essay around the climate furore, and this time he declares:

‘The war against climate alarmism is over, and we won it.

There won’t be a formal surrender, there will be no armistice or cease-fire, there will be no shell-shocked soldiers staggering out of bullet scarred bunkers with their hands raised high waving white kerchiefs and there will be no trials for crimes against humanity for the genocide committed in the developing world, but it’s over.

They’ll just continue to melt away as the murderous craze drifts further into political irrelevance and what will be looked back on as yet another moral aberration of the it’s all about my feelings generation and the politics that pandered to it.

Politically, the whole thing is dead in the water and has been for some time. Global warming is at the bottom of everyone’s list of concerns even if it makes an appearance on the list at all, and we’ve just been through a year-long presidential campaign where it was barely mentioned. Trump being elected as president will be its long overdue coup de grâce, though not in the form of a bullet through the head but rather a knife cutting through its financial umbilical cord down which flow the government grants, concessions and loan guarantees that keep it alive.’

The Times They Are A’Changin

An article (hat tip Climate Depot) with the headline ‘Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold’ by James Varney at Real Clear Investigations, also has some optimism in it:

‘Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.

Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. Blog.

William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”

And, later on in that article, Richard Lindzen himself is not quite so optimistic:

‘Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us. “I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected. “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

How Would We Know ‘Victory’?

Pointman was claiming we were well on the way to victory back in 2012:  

It’s not quite over yet but we’ve beaten them and will have to be satisfied with that. The bitter pill for me, is that none of them will ever stand in a court of law to answer charges of crimes against humanity for the deaths, starvation and poverty that their policies inflicted on the poor around the world. We must now move to get those policies reversed.

But was the main war not already lost years earlier? How else could the lunatic Climate Change Acts in the UK have been passed? How else could possibly every school in the country have been subject to the glossy crafty scary prejudiced ignorance of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’? How else could uncounted thousands of organisations, commercial and charitable, have sprung up to exploit the bonanza of funding they were presented with?

The 2012 Pointman article was discussed on Bishop Hill, and most of the commenters were not so sure about victory. Robin Guenier wrote what to me might be the least we might hope for soon. I reproduce his comment in full here:

‘I agree with those who disagree with Mike Haseler’s view that “we have beaten them”. Although we’re getting there, we’re a long way from that. However, victory need not entail abject surrender: IPCC disbanded and the Nobel prize rescinded, prominent alarmists lose their jobs, WWF and Greenpeace lose their charitable status, etc. These things are not going to happen. Nor need they – it would be sufficient if the “established” view (i.e. the consensus of leading politicians, the MSM, prominent commentators, scientific institutions etc.) were to gently be adjusted to something on the following lines:

1. The world has been warming for at least 160 years.

2. Human activities have contributed to that.

3. Whether the warming trend will continue and whether, if it does, it will be dangerous or even beneficial are matters of considerable uncertainty.

4. What is certain, however, is that the climate changes (it always has) and that historically mankind has been successful in adapting to such change.

5. The key to successful adaptation is a strong global economy.

There are, I think, signs that elements of this attitude are being tentatively adopted: Paul Nurse’s Dimbleby lecture for example.

                                                                            Mar 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM | Robin Guenier’

I think, well I hope, that Robin will be proved right on his 5 items, but I would not call victory (for the revolution, not the original war) myself in the UK until a good few of the following actions were underway:

  1. Repeal of the Climate Change Acts

  2. Dramatic cut in funding for climate research (the topic is interesting but so corrupted by zealots that they need to be starved out before any rebuilding can begin)

  3. Major effort to clean school curricula of all traces of eco-alarmism

  4. Pastoral initiatives to help young people who have been through school over the last 30 years and who have been burdened by a depressing view of their future

  5. Met Office divested of all climate roles, and returned to being dedicated to weather forecasting and associated data collection and management.

  6. Opening of a Hubert Lamb Climate Research Centre somewhere untainted by the CO2 alarm virus

  7. Cease participation in UNEP and the IPCC, and cease all associated funding in all UN bodies with major interests in promoting climate alarm such as UNESCO.

  8. Cease spending on climate change in Overseas Aid budgets

  1. Launch a Royal Commission to report back on how we got into this mess

In any event, the election of Trump and his extremely promising list of appointees does make it look like many of the not long established empires of the Carbon Dioxide Movement are under serious threat.  

Welcome 2017!  And a Guid New Year for All Our Readers may it turn out to be!

32 thoughts on “Hallelujah, the Great Storm is Over?

  1. /’;*//,.”Pastoral initiatives to help young people who have been through school over the last 30 years and who have been burdened by a depressing view of their future’

    This is one I agree with! Young children, from mommies tit, remain idiots and ignorant!! It takes huge effort on the part of both mommy and daddy to convert that into a Human! Such huge effort must be supported at every level, else humans are not fit to be top predator on this wonderful Earth. Might as well leave it to the Roaches

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Pointman’s optimism seems to be based entirely on Trump’s election. He says:

    Politically, the whole thing is dead in the water and has been for some time. Global warming is at the bottom of everyone’s list of concerns even if it makes an appearance on the list at all, and we’ve just been through a year-long presidential campaign where it was barely mentioned. Trump being elected as president will be its long overdue coup de grâce..

    It is not true that climate was barely mentioned in the US campaign. Bernie Sanders gave it a prominent place, as do populist leftwing politicians in Britain, France and Italy and no doubt elsewhere. From recent declarations by Corbyn in Britain or Melenchon in France or Bepe Grillo in Italy, it seems the modern left has no economic policy and no idea of what a left-wing political revolution might entail. Its position can be summed up in Private Eye style thus:

    1) We’re for decent working people and their families

    2) We need to ban fossil fuels, plastic bags and fracking, and subsidise electric cars, oceanic windmills and village base solar panel co-operatives in Africa, in order to create a 21st century technological revolution and millions of green jobs

    3) Er, that’s it.

    Trump’s appointees will no doubt make some sensible decisions on climate science and energy policies, but, if the past few weeks’ tweets are anything to go by, Trump will lurch from disaster to disaster, and the Democrats will be back with a vengeance, and I mean vengeance.

    There is no way that the entire political establishments of the Western world, plus the EU, the UN and the main centre left and center right media can admit that they were wrong.

    It’s not over yet. Your own demands for actions that would signal victory in the (counter-) revolution are maximalist, in the good old Bolshevik tradition. I have a feeling that’s the way to go.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I wish I could share your optimism, John. But when I took your recommended trip down BH memory lane, I found myself in violent agreement with the following from Mike Jackson [Mar 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM]:

    UN will have an Intergovernmental Panel ready, willing and able to recruit — allegedly in the name of ‘diversity’ but in fact as a form of neo-colonialism — third-rate scientists who will probably struggle to spell ‘sustainability’ (not to mention ‘eugenicist’!) but will be quite happy to bask in the plethora of meaningless titles which they will be awarded and only too happy to add their names to the pseudo-scientific drivel which will be cobbled together by whichever group of second-rate BSc graduates the eco-warriors light upon next.

    As I had noted some six years ago, the UN – in hindsight, perhaps silently aware that “climate change/global warming” was never going to cut their send-us-more-money overarching “cause” – was already grooming and fine-tuning its replacement bandwagon. The IPBES (Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) was waiting in the wings, along with its very own “bible”, TEEB. See: Move over IPCC … here comes IPBES

    In the intervening years, “sustainability” – and/or variants thereof – has climbed the UN ladder while quietly taking CC/AGW (and its well-rehearsed word salads) under its ever-spreading wings. Of the 17 new, improved “overarching” UN “Sustainable Development Goals … to Transform Our World”, only three make any mention of “climate change”. And these “goals” come with a mere 169 “targets”. Here’s the UN blowing its own horn, as usual:

    On September 25th 2015, countries adopted a set of goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development agenda. Each goal has specific targets to be achieved over the next 15 years.

    For the goals to be reached, everyone needs to do their part: governments, the private sector, civil society and people like you.

    Bottom line, from my perspective: If one were to remove “climate change” and “sustainable development” – neither of which was part of the UN’s original mandate 70+ years ago – along with its perennial whipping boy, for any and all seasons and reasons (i.e. Israel), the UN would be left with very little on its ever-expanding, bureaucratic, self-serving and self-perpetuating plate.

    Furthermore, globally the UN has utterly failed in all measures on its original mandate: human rights. And its record on preventing wars and meeting the needs of refugees is appalling. Syria.is only the latest example.

    Perhaps it’s time – if not long past time – for the UN (along with the EU and its North American imitations) to go the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations.

    Notwithstanding the fact that Canada is belatedly marching on a horrendous tax-and-spend path to green nirvana that will do no one any good, except the usual suspects … UN-exit sounds very good to me, at this point. I know, I know … but I can dream, can’t I?! Oh, well … Happy New Year to all 🙂

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Thank you! Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) says: “Perhaps it’s time – if not long past time – for the UN (along with the EU and its North American imitations) to go the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations.

    Good God Hilary. Just let Midwest ‘merican parents raise own ofsprouts to become human\beings\’mericans. ‘Mericans’ have long demonstrated ability to do just that!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Geoff Chambers says: 01 Jan 17 at 11:43 pm

    Pointman’s optimism seems to be based entirely on Trump’s election. He says:

    “Politically, the whole thing is dead in the water and has been for some time.”

    Do you Geoff find any error in that? Why? What political alternatives do you offer!

    Like

  6. I offer no opinion on the success or otherwise of Trump’s upcoming Presidency but I do share the less than optimistic views of Geoff, Hilary and Lindzen on the subject of climate change policy and eco-loonyism in general. I am willing to admit that this may be partly due to the fact that I am a natural born pessimist, but really, I just can’t see any mechanism for rolling back the truly vast social, political, financial, technical and ideological investment in public life, in politics and academia, which the twin ideological evils of ‘climate change’ and ‘sustainability’ have put in over the last 40 odd years. Like Lindzen, just for starters, I believe that they have utterly destroyed the “intellectual foundations” of climate science and are well on their way to entirely corrupting the field of geosciences in general.

    Actually, I can see one way out of this mess, and it’s not political, it’s physical, and it’s by no means a certainty. If, as predicted, global temperatures do fall significantly in the coming decades due to a combination of natural externally (solar activity/volcanism) and internally (PDO/AMO) forced climate change, then it is going to be nigh on impossible for the eco-loons to claim that CO2 is driving climate change on any practical timescale. Furthermore, the measures put in place to reduce CO2 emissions are going to be pitifully inadequate to cope with the increases in demand for energy, especially during winter. National grid systems will collapse and tragically many thousands of people will die as a direct result of loss of availability of energy combined with energy poverty. Then the backlash against establishment climate science will be nothing short of a bloody coup. This will not be a nice way out because it will involve the deaths of many vulnerable people who will have been pushed over the edge by insane (genocidal?) energy policies, who will be uniquely sensitive to even modest declines in average winter temperatures. Like I say, I’m a natural born pessimist!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. It is ironic when those who cheer Trump’s election talk about poverty in the developing world, when their hero is so opposed to exactly those trade policies of the last decades that have pulled so many millions of poor people out of poverty.

    On Guenier’s point 4:

    4. What is certain, however, is that the climate changes (it always has) and that historically mankind has been successful in adapting to such change.

    That seems idiotic. He’s basically saying that mankind didn’t become extinct globally in earlier climate events, even though it might have done so locally, and therefor it can be ‘successful’ (i.e. not go extinct) through any man-made climate event. When your measure of success is avoiding extinction, you give yourself a lot of leeway for stupid policy.

    Jaime, when you say “If, as predicted, global temperatures do fall significantly in the coming decades…“, Which predictions are you referring to and what are they based upon? I’ve seen various predictions of cooling from sceptics (Easterbrook for example) but they have no skill.

    Like

  8. Len:

    It is ironic when those who cheer Trump’s election talk about poverty in the developing world, when their hero is so opposed to exactly those trade policies of the last decades that have pulled so many millions of poor people out of poverty.

    I could have written that. We have to be consistent. Unless we’re running for President of the United States I guess. (And that’s the one uncertainty for me. Is Trump really so opposed to free trade or was that also merely “campaign shtick” – as one person on the transition team called some great claimed policy of Trump’s not long after the election?)

    Thanks for expressing this very well.

    Like

  9. Go to twitter search Lewandowsky using Qtn Marks
    9am R4 prog made by BBC MetBubbleworld about Post Truth used narrative construction trick to frame Post Truth as a fault of ‘ProgLefts’ enemies (Talk about Projection) .
    Lew featured heavily.
    Ben Pile was on the case but too busy to blog
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086nzlg

    Like

  10. Len,

    There have been many ‘casual’ predictions of cooling, also many scientific studies which suggest that cooling in the years to come is a real possibility. I find Zharkova’s prediction of a Maunder type minimum in solar activity starting around 2030 to be persuasive. It remains to be seen, if this does indeed happen, whether the projected warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect will minimise or even cancel the effect of such a large decline in solar activity. If it does not, we could be in serious trouble.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icey-reception-from-colleagues/

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I’m with the gloomy party, although as Jaime has it, a physical signal will shorten the pain but I won’t hold my breath for a fall in temperatures. I’d settle for something close to the pause. The water temps are looking more El Nino than La Nina at the moment.

    I agree that too many credentials have been tied to the hysteria so rowing back from it will be hard. It will be the money that drives common sense. Here’s another example of a renewable going belly up

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4081766/18million-tidal-energy-scheme-stops-working-just-three-months.html

    All those bold CO2 reduction claims are going to have to be rolled back, purely because we can’t achieve them. I’m tempted to suggest that the UK will do its bit for reducing CO2, simply by leaving the EU.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-representations-guidance/guidance-for-submitting-your-budget-or-autumn-statement-representation

    It will be interesting how long Hitler guilt will continue to drive German desire to fix the world’s problems. I think there will be a lot of ‘well if you’re not, we’re not’ an having chosen that course, governments are going to want evidence to justify the decision. I’m waiting for the first ‘deniers were right but for the wrong reason’. Or ‘deniers said there’d be no warming, there is warming. 0.1 degree C per decade is warming’.

    Like

  12. I share the pessimism of others here about the victory over climate alarmism. For many years the alarmists have realized that the game was up, so have built a near-impregnable fortress. The Lewandowsky and Cook approach is to emphasize the scientific consensus, that is nothing more in shared beliefs about climate and policy. “Climate denial” has switched from denying the theory and the cherry-picked supporting evidence, to the denial of the climate consensus. There is the replacement from evaluating scientific work on “climate” with how it deepens our understanding of real world data, to according to how it conforms or not to consensus beliefs. This can be best seem from the impact of greenhouse gases on temperature, with John Cook’s little Temperature Escalator widget the clearest example. If you evaluate data according to a long-term linear warming trend, then you are with the scientific consensus. But make the heretical observation that around the turn of the century actual warming stopped, when theory would predict a greater warming rate then you become a (consensus) denier.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Climate policy is another area where there are grounds for pessimism. The penultimate post at Paul Matthews’ blog was Robin Guenier on Philippe Sands. Here Robin Guenier pointed out that global emissions reductions of the scale envisaged by the IPCC were impossible as the countries responsible for two-thirds of emissions had been exempted by the 1992 Rio Declaration from any obligation to reduce emissions. It is worse than that. Between 1990 and 2012 global emissions grew by over 40%. The net emissions growth of the exempt countries were slightly greater than the global emissions growth.

    Emissions will continue growing in the the exempt developing countries in the coming decades, yet to achieve the 2C warming limit requires global emissions to fall by at least 15-20% by 2030, and continue rapidly falling thereafter.
    I point this out to demonstrate that policy is not, and never has been, anything to do with achieving emissions targets. If it were, then there would be a global plan, with all countries clearly defined targets fitted into that plan.

    Like

  14. I do not share Pointman’s optimism. The tide has turned, yes. But the war is not won. CPP is in limbo only because likely unconstitutional, not because the people who crafted it have had a change of heart or been fired. UK’s CCA is still on the books. IPCC AR6 is being planned. COP23 has not been descheduled. All the advocacy interests that hitched their wagons to the AGW locomotive are still hooked up and not derailed. It will end faster than it began, but still many years away.

    I also do not share Pointman’s Christian charity toward the warmunist perpetrators. If this huge ‘piltdown man’ equivalent scientific bollux simply fades away with no consequences, then there is no societal learning and no corrective mechanisms to prevent a recurrence in another watermellon guise like ‘sustainability’. There must be harsh, public, memorable consequences. If it takes grid failure from intermittent renewables and lack of grid inertia causing real attributable deaths in a UK winter multiday blackout, unfortunate but so be it. Collateral damage of warmunist, not of skeptical, making. If it takes harshly downsizing academia by drastically cutting climate grants, lets get on with it.
    My late father, a highly decorated US military officer, taught me early on never to start a fight, but when one does, you finish on top and and so victorious the other side never tries to start one again. We do not yet have the skeptical equivalents of Dresden or Hiroshima. in my opinion, they will be needed.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Or as Winston said, after victory magnanimity. But not before victory.

    Winston’s personal reaction when shown movies of the firebombing of German cities has also always been an inspiration to me. “Have we become beasts?” he said with tears in his eyes to the great surprise of the military top brass there who’d been almost jumping for joy.

    Rud’s is the best and most realistic contribution so far. But none of this is good.

    Like

  16. What do people think has actually changed? Nothing in the science of CO2 is different. You can’t think that cutting research funding, destroying archives or documents, interrupting data recording or restricting government scientists from talking to the public will change climate sensitivity. So what has changed?

    Like

  17. Len: Richard Lindzen’s point is that the field has become corrupted through too much money. In his view, from experience, it was better when it was a “backwater”. I agree 100%. I’ve always felt that George HW Bush’s tenfold increase of federal funding from (roughly) $200 million per year in 1988 to $2 billion by the end of 1992 was a disaster for what really mattered: the quality of the science. This is one example where the word decimate really is called for. See the next post for a key example of someone ‘climate science’ cannot afford to lose – but because it has too much money, it has lost her. Everyone else is the poorer.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. “What do people think has actually changed?” Len

    So far nothing other than a few nervous scientists and mouth frothing suporters. What might happen is proper regulation of the science where standards usually applied to industry are landed on the science. All sorts of lovely rules about documentation, archiving, transparency, testing, etc, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Len says nothing fundamental has changed; the ‘science of CO2’ is the same and old faithful ‘climate sensitivity’ is the same. Bullying scientists, cutting funding and destroying ‘evidence’ is not going to change those things.

    But, you’re right Len, nothing has changed. The ‘science’ is as clueless about climate sensitivity as it was a quarter of a century ago and the world, according to the latest satellite data is about as warm as it was 18 years ago.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

    Like

  20. “I’ve seen various predictions of cooling from sceptics (Easterbrook for example) but they have no skill.”

    They haven’t?

    And just precisely how would YOU know?

    In fact, do you understand the precise meaning of the term “skill” in this context?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. RISTVAN
    I clicked “like” on your comment before I’d thought about what your references to Dresden and Hiroshima meant. So I took my revenge by correcting a couple of your spelling mistakes. And “warmunist” is meaningless. Marx is for man’s domination of the material world for the benefit of man, not for bleating about pipelines going over sacred mountains.

    What I agree with is your judgement that it will take a long time, and possibly some memorable suffering, before the warmist ideology fades away. It will start with the young, who will find that their degrees in environmental science no longer lead to a job in green lalaland as environmental advisor to the CEO’s chief shoeshine girl or whatever. From there it will spread to academia, as the cleverer professors retreat to the geography departments from which they emerged. The think tanks and government departments that hire them will go next, and finally the message will get through to the politicians, and maybe even to the journalists, that global warming is a concern of the old, like prostate problems.

    Like prostate cancer, global warming is fatal, but since it’s ubiquitous and takes half a century to manifest itself, there’s not much point worrying about it.

    Like

  22. Remember how the old Soviet Union collapsed almost literally overnight like a house of cards in a hurricane?

    One day the USSR was a Global superpower, the next a ragtag collection of failed states?

    And how not a single intelligence agency, media mogul or pundit had the slightest inkling it was just about to happen?

    IMO the whole rickety “Climate Science” edifice will collapse in a very similar fashion.

    Just after the European Union, if I don’t miss my guess.

    Brexit, then Trump, the World has changed.

    So think on, as we say in Yorkshire!

    Liked by 3 people

  23. GC, thanks for correcting my fat fingered iPad missed space bars. Going to fast, as always. Especially over the New Year weekend. Much appreciate your revenge on my Dresden and Hiroshima analogies.
    Of course, nothing that horrific should happen. But warmunist careers should be ruined, and the likes of Milibank (I believe he was the UK CCA proponent) called to public account. Hansen and Karl have retired on fat government pensions with no consequences. That’s not right.
    BTW, warmunist is a precisely derived term in the last paragraphs of my essay Climitastrosophisyry (well, Mary Poppins had supercalifragilisticexpialidocious). Homage to former Czech president Vaclav Klaus 2007 book, Blue Planet in Green Chains. As wine snobs might say, with supple overnotes of Marxism and Lysenkoism.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Rud:

    Of course, nothing that horrific should happen.

    It was an analogy and I thought an important one. You nailed for me the key weakness in Pointman’s approach:

    If this huge ‘piltdown man’ equivalent scientific bollux simply fades away with no consequences, then there is no societal learning and no corrective mechanisms to prevent a recurrence in another watermellon guise like ‘sustainability’. There must be harsh, public, memorable consequences.

    I of course do not ascribe the error to “Christian charity”. Jesus was no pushover when it came to self-serving elitist deception, nor should we be. And I have no problem with ‘warmunist’ though I’d never use it myself. Which brings me to …

    Catweazle: The surprise end of the Cold War as an alternative analogy from history has been much on my mind as well. I predicted it of course – soon after going to Leningrad, Kiev and Moscow for the 1980 Olympic Games. I felt the two of us who did that trip had been given clear evidence that this was a system falling apart. But, with ridiculous leftism on the rise, have we in any way learned the lessons?

    (Here’s an example: the last person I followed on Twitter. I’d been much impressed by his writings on the Rust programming language. His thoughts on Trump were also not a problem for me. But hammer and sickle in the profile photo? Really? Mass murder glorified.)

    So back to Geoff Chambers 🙂 I actually liked and agreed with this:

    It’s not over yet. Your own demands for actions that would signal victory in the (counter-) revolution are maximalist, in the good old Bolshevik tradition. I have a feeling that’s the way to go.

    But that was pre-1917 I assume. One hundred years. What have we learned? I intend to take a further look at that in my next main post, God willing.

    Like

  25. Check out Tony Thomas’s latest piece on how the warming message has been promulgated in the military establishments of the US and now Australia.
    https://tthomas061.wordpress.com

    The war isn’t over, because a new generation of “scientists” has been created, the Midwych Cuckoos produced by Potsdam, CRU, Oxford ECI and the like.

    It will only stop when the funding stops and this is where Richard Lindzen is so right.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Yes, the funding has to stop. And then we might hope for more and more people in power (as opposed to the general public who are doing it already) just ignoring the advice from all the exploiters and carpet-baggers of the CO2 Scaremongering.

    Here is a weather-related micro-allegory for what could happen. The UK Met Office recently added to its track record of attempts to damage our society, this time by pushing scary stories about flooding in SE England. The police in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex found it sufficiently persuasive to call for mass evacuations. The report notes one resident claiming that 99% of the people just ignored them and stayed put.

    More details here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2017/jan/14/uk-environment-agency-suffolk-norfolk-essex-severe-weather-warnings

    Crying wolf too often is not a good thing for a weather service. Nor for a climate service. Too many false alarms, and they get ignored. Then one day, by chance or whatever, they stumble upon a situation where dire warnings are appropriate ….

    Defund the CO2 alarmers, and ignore them. Then when the system is flushed out, start building up something worthy of our trust on the climate front – perhaps inr a couple of decades from now. As for the Met Office, cutting it back to weather forecasting and data management only might just help it calm down a bit on the weather front too.

    Like

  27. The East Coast floods were predicted on the basis of very high tides, a strong sea surge and strong winds. All three predictions proved correct, but the effects were, fortunately, not synchronous. If they had been there probably would have been severe flooding. Cromer’s tide gauging station recorded the highest high water ever recorded, 1.5m above high tide. Areas not protected by flood defences suffered more damage than during the last flooding event.

    Overall, not a bad call, and East Anglia was indeed fortunate.

    Like

  28. Your generosity becomes you Alan. I guess you are saying that although the alarm turned out to be a false one, the call wasn’t a bad one in the circumstances. In general, it is the path of least regret for weather forecasters to err on the side of exaggeration when bad weather is possible, and with those three items on the cards, who can blame the police? But it seems that most of the people in the threatened areas ignored their advice, and they, in hindsight at least, were right to do so. I did seize upon this to bolster my hope than more and more people in sundry positions of power will choose not to follow the advice of the CO2 Alarmers, and you are right to point out that I may have been too hasty to make a mini-sermon out of it! .

    Like

  29. John Shade. My mouth is full of words put there. No, what I was saying was that the prediction of severe flooding was almost correct, a very close call. If the winds hadn’t died down sufficiently when the surge and high tide hit, there would be very different stories – of literally hundreds of people who put themselves in peril. I fear that when the next severe flooding warnings are issued even more people will not heed them and the consequences will be truly tragic. Will the police and rescue services prepare sufficiently? Possibly not if they falsely believe the Met Office cries wolf.

    Like

  30. I think it likely that ‘even more people will not heed them’.Here’s a native of one of the threatened areas on 12 Jan which suggests some are already a bit fed up with it all:

    Matthew Woolston, who lives close to the seafront, says: “My friends say they are going to stay in their houses and see it out.
    “They say they have been evacuated so many times they don’t believe it [mass flooding] is going to happen.
    “I am not going anywhere, I don’t think there’s a danger and the sea looks too calm.” ‘
    [source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38601147%5D

    He and ‘they’ turned out to be right, since there was no mass flooding, but one would like to know more about the basis for their optimism. Merely being fed up with false alarms is not good enough on its own, imho.

    The dilemma facing forecasters is a tough one, but the professional is paid to grit their teeth and make their best call. If they are to be on target, then about half the time they will underestimate severity and about half the time overestimate it. My hunch is that the weather forecasts in recent years/decades are erring too much on the side of overestimation – from events like that one, but mostly from personal experience. It may be that they are still smarting from that so-called ‘Michael Fish forecast’ which missed the hurricane force winds hitting the south of England way back when. I say so-called because actually since he was not Chief Forecaster, he had to follow the forecasts approved by that person at the Met Office and not invent one of his own. His task, and it is no small one, was to find the right words to convey the approved forecast in ways suited to his audience.

    Coming back to climate and CO2, I have another hunch that we have been unfortunate to have had ‘vulnerable to excessive alarm’ characters in positions of influence in connection with CO2 and climate, perhaps most notably James Hansen. That coupled with people willing and able to exploit that alarm for political ends, perhaps most notably Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and, for the UK at least, Crispin Tickell. I wish calmer voices had prevailed, such as Richard Lindzen’s, but that is history now. So far, Lindzen looks to have been a far better guide than Hansen.

    There, I got another mini-sermon out of it!

    Like

  31. Optimism at WUWT. A writer there thinks leading CO2 Alarmers are in the final stages of their grief, and some may be looking for new crusades to keep themselves amused/self-satisfied/being a nuisance to the rest of us: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/14/climate-activists-final-act-as-they-move-into-the-last-stage-of-grief/. It is a repost of an article by Larry Kummer here: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/02/11/the-climate-change-debate-is-ending/ . Extract follows:

    For 29 years advocates for public policy changes to fight climate change have struggled to convince the US public to support their agenda. They have failed. Polls show it ranks near the bottom of American’s policy priorities, and the increasingly dominant Republican Party has little interest in their recommendations.

    It’s taken a while, but it looks like climate activists have worked through the process of accepting their failure. Paul Rosenberg’s January 2 article at Salon and now Meehan Crist’s article at The Atlantic suggest activists are moving into the fourth stage of the Kübler-Ross process, depression — and their leading edge is moving into the final stage of acceptance — and finding new crusades to wage.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s