The profiteers of doom are at it again

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Christopher Monckton puts together a riposte to the rather weak-kneed criticism by Wratt, Reisinger and Renwick of the Dominion Post article by Bob Carter and Bryan Leyland in which they make a case for open climate discussion. – RT

When climate scientists unfairly give only one side of the story, as Professor Wratt et al. did earlier this week (Opinion, Dominion Post, February 10), taxpayers should keep a tight grip on their wallets.

The Professor starts out by saying the world is 0.9 Kelvin warmer than in the late 19th century. What he does not say is that in absolute terms this represents an increase of just 0.3%. Unspectacular.

Next, we are told that “last year – 2014 – was the warmest year globally since comprehensive records began in about 1880”. Actually, the global instrumental temperature record began in 1850, but let that pass. The HadCRUT record, kept since that year, shows 1998 as warmer than 2010, with warm spikes in 2002 and 2011 also above anything in 2014.

The RSS and UAH satellite datasets also do not show 2014 as the warmest year on the record. Only two of the five global reference datasets – GISS and NCDC – show 2014 as the record.

And, as the director of GISS admitted, his record showed only a 38% probability that 2014 was the warmest, and even then only by a hundredth of a degree.

Notwithstanding record rises in CO2 concentration, the RSS satellites show no warming since the end of 1996, and all other datasets are within statistical shouting distance of that. Professor Wratt calls this 18-year-long absence of global warming a “short-term wiggle”.

Let us go back a full quarter of a century to the first multi-thousand-page Holy Book in the Pentateuch of the UN’s climate panel. The druids then stated their “substantial confidence” that the computer models had captured the principal features of global climate.

Well, they hadn’t. On all five global temperature datasets, the rate of global warming in the 25 years since 1990 has been half of the central business-as-usual estimate which the IPCC had so confidently but misguidedly predicted, even though CO2 concentration has risen faster than the IPCC’s then prediction. As Professor Feynman used to say, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

Next, Professor Wratt talks of “Arctic sea ice melting”. Though he also mentions Antarctica, he fails to mention that sea ice there has been on a strong uptrend since satellite monitoring began 35 years ago, and that as recently as September last year the extent of global sea ice was greater for the time of year than ever before.

The Professor may like to read Doran et al. (2004), on the damage done by extreme cold in some Antarctic glens. Warmer is better. Yet he says Arctic ecosystems are being “affected”.

Take polar bears. The Professor says there is no peer-reviewed evidence for an increase in their numbers. Let him read Peacock et al. (2013), for instance, which finds polar bears have increased to carrying capacity in the Davis Strait.

Then, inevitably, sea level. Professor Wratt says, “The average rate of sea-level rise during the past century has been larger than the average during the past 2000 years.” But that type of comparison of a short period with a long one (where short periods of sharp rise and fall are averaged out) is statistical malpractice.

Is the rate of sea-level rise over the past century greater than in any previous century? That is the right question, but the Professor did not ask it. So I asked it. Grinsted et al. (2009) showed that between 950 and 1050 AD, as the medieval climate optimum took hold, the rate of sea-level rise was no less great than in the past century. Not many SUVs about in those days.

Interestingly, Grinsted also showed that sea level was higher than today by 20 cm in the mediaeval climate optimum (or warm period, for warmer is better than colder), and lower than today by 20 cm during the little ice age about 300 years ago. Sea level does not change much in modern conditions, and, according to Professor Niklas Mörner in a 2011 paper, it may not be rising at all at present.

And why should it? One of the best-kept secrets in the climate debate is that the 3600 automated bathythermograph floats of the ARGO project, which measure the temperature of the upper 2000 m of the extrapolar ocean and report the results by satellite, show warming over their 11-year record at a rate equivalent to just 0.2 Kelvin (or Celsius degrees) per century. The Professor is careful to tell us the oceans are warming, but he is just as careful not to reveal just how little it is warming.

It is only by warming the ocean that we can cause sea level to rise. But after up to 18 years without any global warming, and up to 26 years without any statistically significant warming, the Professor’s statements about low-lying small islands being at risk from rising seas, and about “heat-induced mass coral bleaching” are unfounded.

Coral islands actually grow as sea level grows. It is no mere coincidence that thousands of coral atolls worldwide are exactly at or just above sea level. They have grown that way because sea level has risen by 130 m in the past 11,700 years. That is well over a metre a century, compared with just 0.2 metres in the 20th century.

The corals have simply grown to match. Besides, the satellite records from ENVISAT showed sea level rising from 2004-2012 at a rate of 3 cm per century.

The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites actually showed sea level falling from 2003-2009, so the data had to be adjusted to create a large enough sea-level rise to keep the panic dollars flowing.

As for coral bleaching, indeed it did occur during the natural Great el Nino of 1998, which transiently but sharply warmed the oceans. However, coral stratigraphy has shown that in the two previous great el Ninos over the past 300 years the corals bleached too, and those episodes too were nothing to do with us.

What about ocean “acidification”? The Professor mentions it, of course, but fails to mention that it cannot happen. For the oceans are overwhelmingly buffered by the alkaline rock basins in which they lie. For that reason, the oceans are pronouncedly alkaline themselves and – under anything like today’s conditions – must remain so.

Besides, the corals have survived for 550 million years. They even survived the last genuine acidification of the oceans, 55 million years ago. After all, many reefs are directly in the firing-line of river estuaries, where floods can bring millions of gallons of rainwater into the oceans and straight on to the reefs.

Rainwater is truly acid, at a pH of 5.4 (7 being neutral). The oceans are alkaline, at a mean pH of 7.9. Yet the corals do not curl up and die when rainwater hits them. They thrive.

Besides, there is no global network of pH measurements, and no standard equipment for making the measurements. All we have are a few random transects by research vessels, and a few local data series.

But should we expect ocean “acidification” to be happening? No. Despite almost 300 years of industrialization, with all the benefits that has brought to Man, one of the biggest secrets in the climate debate is that, to the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air at all.

Besides, if the oceans were warming as rapidly as the Professor imagines, the warmer water would outgas CO2, partly balancing such tiny changes in pH as might otherwise have occurred.

Next, we are told that “Glaciers have continued to shrink long-term almost worldwide”. In fact, there are more than 160,000 glaciers worldwide. Most of them have never been visited or measured by Man.

Some glaciers have shrunk, revealing forests, mountain passes and even an entire silver mine underneath, showing that they had been far less extensive than today in the Middle Ages.

But in Antarctica, where there has been little or no warming according to the UN’s climate panel, there is no reason to suppose that most glaciers are receding.

Then the Professor says a “substantial contribution” to global warming since 1950 must have come from greenhouse gases because he cannot think of any other explanation. That is the shop-soiled Aristotelian fallacy of the argument from ignorance. It has no place in the writings of any true scientist.

Just look at the increase in solar activity from the Grand Minimum of 1545-1715 to the near-Grand Maximum of 1925-1975, peaking in 1960. Allow for the massive thermal inertia of the oceans (one reason why one need not fear rapid climate change), and the record increase in solar activity over the past 300 years is quite enough, on its own, to explain all the trivial warming of around 0.6-0.7 K that we have seen since 1950. I’d expect some contribution from Man now and in future, but, on balance, not a lot.

Next, the Professor reveals he has not kept current with the paleoclimate literature. He says that for the Northern Hemisphere the past 30 years were the warmest such period in the past 1400 years.

However, the evidence from proxy reconstructions, rather than from people playing with failed computer models, is near-unanimous in finding the medieval warm period real, global, and almost everywhere warmer than the present. I can provide some 450 scientific papers establishing this fact not by modelling but by measurement.

The Professor then shows ignorance of the learned journals of agricultural science. He says that climate change “risks severe yield decreases” in wheat, rice and maize. Yet tests at agricultural stations have shown that yield increases of 20-40% are to be expected in these staple crops owing to what is known as CO2 fertilization.

For CO2 is plant food, and its atmospheric concentration at present is close to the lowest in the long-term record.

Finally, the Professor says, “Changes have been observed in many extreme weather events”. Yet the UN’s climate panel says otherwise. It reports no changes in the frequency, intensity or duration of floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, extra-tropical storms or tornadoes. Deaths owing to extreme weather are close to an all-time low, having fallen dramatically over the past half-century.

As is traditional among true-believers in Thermageddon, the Professor ends on an apocalyptic note almost entirely absent in the reviewed literature on climate change. I was a co-author of Legates et al. (2013), which found that of 11,944 papers on climate and related matters published in the 21 years 1991-2011 just 64, or 0.5%, even went so far as to state that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade.

Very few of even these papers said global warming would be dangerous. The notion that it may be dangerous, therefore, is almost entirely political, and has very few explicit endorsements anywhere in the reviewed papers published in the learned journals of science.

It is precisely because too many “scientists” have been too selective with their facts and have preferred models to data that the climate scare is still running. The day of reckoning is at hand, however.

Already the entire board of the CSIRO in Australia has been sacked, at least in part because the institution, like so many, prostituted science for profit.

As the profiteers of doom continue to be proven wrong by events, more heads will roll. And good riddance. They have flung science back into the Dark Ages.

39 Thoughts on “The profiteers of doom are at it again

  1. Very good – but please, pale grey on a white background is nigh on impossible for anybody with poor eyesight to read. Maybe that’s why books are printed in BLACK and white?

  2. Richard Treadgold on March 11, 2015 at 10:24 am said:

    My apologies, Jeremy, I had no idea it was so indistinct. I’m not too sure I can get at the style sheet to change the colour. Perhaps you could alter your monitor’s contrast or brightness to assist?

  3. Some good points therein.
    However, I think saying that the temperature change is 0.3% by comparing to absolute zero (i.e the Kelvin scale) is a little misleading.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 12:45 pm said:

    >”The [IPCC] druids then stated their “substantial confidence” that the computer models had captured the principal features of global climate. Well, they hadn’t. On all five global temperature datasets, the rate of global warming in the 25 years since 1990 has been half of the central business-as-usual estimate which the IPCC had so confidently but misguidedly predicted….”

    Worth repeating from previous thread:

    Fred Singer: “Successive IPCC summaries have claimed increasing certainty [from 50% in 1996, rising to >95% in 2013] about a human cause of global warming — even as the disparity between observations and IPCC models continues to grow year by year –now for more than 18 years.”

    IPCC certainty vs models vs observations graphed by Roy Spencer:
    http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg

  5. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm said:

    >”the satellite records from ENVISAT showed sea level rising from 2004-2012 at a rate of 3 cm per century”

    Except not a world-wide phenomenon according to the spatial metroic from AVISO:

    http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif

  6. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 12:57 pm said:

    >”the near-Grand Maximum of 1925-1975, peaking in 1960″

    No. 1958 2005, peaking in 1986.

    Add 30 – 40 yrs sun-ocean-atmosphere lag (citation doesn’t come to mind right now) to 2005 gives 2040 for the secular peak in temperature (irrespective of oscillations).

  7. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 2:00 pm said:

    Above should be:

    “Add 30 – 40 yrs sun-ocean-atmosphere lag (citation doesn’t come to mind right now) to 2005 gives 2040 for the [end of the] secular peak in temperature”

    The actual peak should be around 2021 obviously (1986 + 35 = 2021). See Macias et al (2014):

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140911092905.htm

    Macias et al haven’t discovered the solar driver yet but give them time.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 2:10 pm said:

    >”Add 30 – 40 yrs sun-ocean-atmosphere lag (citation doesn’t come to mind right now)”

    ‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’

    X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014)

    • The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html

    Abdussamatov calculates 14 +/- 6 planetary thermal lag using thermodynamic principles. I’m inclined to think 30 – 40 yrs is more realistic.

  9. Are there any plans to post this somewhere more accessible to DomPost readers?

    I would presume that a flurry of “angry of Ponsonby” letters have flooded the DomPost editor’s office so the answer is probably “no”

  10. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 2:19 pm said:

    Jeremy Poynton #1

    If you’re using Firefox set View > Page Style to “No Style” and you can read the page in black and white.

    Don’t know how IE does this.

    [BTW RT, “No Style” provides comment numbering and the complete hotlinked blog index e.g. Open Threads.]

  11. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 2:31 pm said:

    >”The Professor [David Wratt] starts out by saying the world is 0.9 Kelvin warmer than in the late 19th century”

    The IPCC AR5 anthropogenic attribution period is 1951 – 2010. Of this period, only 2 decades exhibit any warming representing about 0.45K i.e. at most, human cause can only ever account for half the 0.9K warming.

    See IPCC AR5 SPM Figure 1:

    http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Fig-SPM1.png

  12. Richard C (NZ) on March 11, 2015 at 6:38 pm said:

    >”Macias et al haven’t discovered the solar driver yet but give them time.”

    Judith Curry has.

    Commenting on the 2 papers:

    ‘Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming’
    C. D. Roberts, M. D. Palmer, D. McNeall & M. Collins (2015)

    ‘Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures’
    Byron A. Steinman, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller (2015)

    So where does all this leave us? Internal variability only partly explains the pause – how big that part is remains somewhat unclear, but there is growing evidence that it is the major cause of the pause. The critical issues are how long will the pause last, inability of climate models to simulate a pause beyond 20 yrs with increasing CO2, and what will happen once the internal variability flips to a warming situation.

    Is there a looming ‘warming spurt’ at the ‘end’ of the pause? Maybe, but it depends on what is going on with the sun. Many solar scientists expect a coming solar cooling. How increasing CO2, solar cooling and internal variability will play out in terms of influencing the global climate over the next several decades is of central importance to our understanding of the climate system, which still has substantial uncertainties (no matter what the IPCC, EPA etc say).

    Bottom line: The pause in global warming is NOT finally explained.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/05/2-new-papers-on-the-pause/#more-17955

    Also, JC on Steinman, Mann, and Miller:

    “Brilliant to use climate models that don’t correctly simulate internal variability, particularly the PDO, to claim that the AMO and PDO aren’t correlated and not part of a stadium wave oscillation. /sarc”

  13. Richard Treadgold on March 11, 2015 at 10:15 pm said:

    RC,

    Thanks for the Firefox tip. Comment numbering would be useful — all I have to do is find out how to activate it in this theme.

  14. Alexander+K on March 12, 2015 at 10:15 am said:

    RT, what a tremendous amount of cross-checking!
    All of the above reminds me of why I no longer bother with ‘news’paper articles about much at all.
    I Googled Professor Wratt and I am utterly unsurprised to find he is yet another dedicated NIWA gravy-train passenger. What a sad waste of an expensive education!
    Why do staffers at NIWA see the big warmy-warmy thing (not original, sadly) as something that must not be contradicted in any way whatsoever? I was told that the essence of being any kind of scientist was objectivity – theirs seems to have melted somewhere along the line.
    I can almost hear starnge echoes of Churchill’s wartime broadcasts – ‘Never has so much been perverted by so many’ or summat similar

  15. I have been discussing the Guardian’s decision not to discuss climate science anymore with a few on Facebook.

    Some people seem to think that discussing climate science makes one a “denier” (it really is that bad now)

    “The science” should be left to “scientists” and the little people like you and I should leave it to the experts.
    Interestingly, the same people are often the ones complaining about the TPPA and marching on the streets because the decision making process has left them out and is left to the “experts”

  16. Speaking of The Guardian, this loss making hate rag has a piece about the forthcoming movie “Merchants of Doubt” where the use of the “denier” label is used liberally

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/11/climate-sceptics-attempt-to-block-merchants-of-doubt-film

    While we are in smear mode, it is worth noting that The Guardian made 600 million pounds on its sale of Autotrader, and paid no tax by setting up a shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid tax on the sale
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10587296/Guardian-Media-Group-gets-600m-for-AutoTrader-stake.html

  17. Richard Treadgold on March 12, 2015 at 2:50 pm said:

    Andy,

    “While we are in smear mode”

    Yet, since we don’t need to stoop to our opponents’ tactics, we are not really in smear mode at all. If we were, we might say something like the above. But of course we’re not. 🙂

    Interesting comments you make about your Facebook discussions. The inconsistency is striking, at least from the outside, if not to the complainants.

    I too have met the new phenomenon that simply discussing global warming marks one out as a denier. The other side has done well in this regard, that much propaganda has been instilled. Uninformed people have now learned the two principles: 1. Global warming doesn’t need to be talked about because it’s dangerous and beyond doubt; 2. Asking means you doubt it, which must mean that you’re just a denier, because it’s settled, innit?

    But you put it more succinctly.

  18. Of course, sorry about the “smear mode” thing, although the tax avoidance thing is factual, and one coming from a preachy newspaper that campaigns against tax avoidance.

    Rules are for the “little people”

    The unquestioning acceptance of dogma is more widespread that just the climate issue.

    On this topic I had an interesting discussion with my GP about Barry Marshall who won the Nobel Prize for medicine for his work on peptic stomach ulcers

    Before his work, the dogma was that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. Marshall showed it was due to a bacterium

    Before his work was recognised, he was ostracised by the community.

    In terms of the general public, I think political correctness equates to moral cowardice or a lack of interest in digging deeper

    It is much easy to run with the pack

  19. Richard Treadgold on March 12, 2015 at 3:12 pm said:

    You’re absolutely right. I think we probably all seek to join a consensus so we can feel we’re right. In this forum, I want to be right all of the time and have my opinions echoed by everyone who visits. I’m the biggest culprit!!

    Wait; I have a vested interest, I pay the hosting fees, renew the domain every year and I have long since decided there are unanswered questions in climate science.

    Wait; that justifies a vested interest. I can start to feel aggrieved that some who visit disagree with me.

    Ah, but wait; oh, never mind.

  20. I think we can all agree to disagree about everything. Except that, of course

  21. Richard Treadgold on March 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm said:

    Heh, heh. It’s fun playing with you.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on March 12, 2015 at 5:49 pm said:

    >”The science” should be left to “scientists” and the little people like you and I should leave it to the experts

    Experts? Hooey.

    What specific qualifications for what particular facet? What transferable skills from the relevant fundamental sciences (of which climate is not one)? Climate scientists don’t have to move very far to be completely out of their depth e.g. from atmosphere to ocean (excuse the pun) or from statistics to heat. Of all the facets, heat (and radiative heat in particular) is probably the one that climate scientists need to be most expert in but nosiree. There are some but I suspect engineers and technologists from applied heat and radiation industries would run rings around them.

    I’m betting very few of the people who read the surface temperature guages and compiled the data were even meteorologists (many were Post Office people). Now they have AWS; technology designed and manufactured not by climate scientists but by technologists. And think satellite technology.

    And does work in an area of climate science now under scrutiny for abject failure, climate models say, qualify the scientist as an expert? I don’t think so.

    How about predictions of future climatic events 100 years out? How does one become expert in that – clairvoyance? Given the predictions for what is now the present are being proven serially wrong, expertise is not a trait we can ascribe to climate science just yet (the CO2-centric kind anyway).

    Climate science are only just getting to grips with natural variability, forced upon them by their neglect of same and subsequent prediction failure. Meanwhile there’s the massive uncertainty of solar science waiting to bite them once they’ve got the natural oceanic oscillations sorted out (something that wasn’t exactly a mystery to begin with).

    Watch the squirming, butt covering, backpedaling, equivocation, and most probably outright prevarication once solar energy goes against CO2-centric climate science the way ocean oscillations did.

  23. Sorry RC I forgot the “sarc” tag

    Very few understand my dark and perverse sense of humour.

    (Least of all, those that might call themselves “liberals”, who appear to exist on a planet that is devoid of life, humour and irony, and only exists to support the state of being permanently offended)

  24. Richard C (NZ) on March 12, 2015 at 6:19 pm said:

    I wasn’t shooting the messenger Andy.

  25. Richard Treadgold on March 12, 2015 at 6:24 pm said:

    Andy,

    “Very few understand my dark and perverse sense of humour.”

    I did.

    Your ‘liberal’ definition: droll, sir.

  26. RC – point taken.
    RT – The planet “offended” is here, it is real, and it is caused by use

    We need to take action!

  27. Richard C (NZ) on March 12, 2015 at 6:38 pm said:

    More solar science for the climatologists to disparage (probably funded by Big Oil):

    ‘New paper finds evidence of [Gleissberg] solar cycle at high-latitudes of Northern Hemisphere’

    The Hockey Schtick, March 10, 2015

    A new paper published in Advances in Space Research finds “evidence for a connection between century-long variations in solar activity and climate was obtained for the entire boreal zone of the Northern Hemisphere,” correlated to the Gleissberg century-scale solar cycle. […]

    ‘Evidence for the Gleissberg solar cycle at the high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere’

    M. Ogurtsova, M. Lindholm, R. Jalkanen, S. Veretenenkoa

    Time evolution of growing season temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere was analyzed using both wavelet and Fourier approaches. A century-scale (60–140 year) cyclicity was found in the summer temperature reconstruction from the Taymir peninsula (∼72° N, ∼105° E) and other high-latitude (60–70° N) regions during the time interval AD 1576–1970. This periodicity is significant and consists of two oscillation modes, 60–70 year and 120–140 year variations. In the summer temperatures from the Yamal peninsula (∼70° N, ∼67° E) only a shorter-term (60–70 year) variation is present. A comparison of the secular variation in the Northern Hemisphere temperature proxies with the corresponding variations in sunspot numbers and the fluxes of cosmogenic 10Be in Greenland ice shows that a probable cause of this variability is the modulation of temperature by the century-scale solar cycle of Gleissberg. This is consistent with the results obtained previously for Northern Fennoscandia (67°–70° N, 19°–33° E). Thus, evidence for a connection between century-long variations in solar activity and climate was obtained for the entire boreal zone of the Northern Hemisphere.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/03/new-paper-finds-evidence-of-solar-cycle.html

    # # #

    Obviously part of the grand fossil fuel merchant conspiracy to sow seeds of doubt, mislead, spread untruths, etc, etc.

  28. And so it goes on and on.

    The pond life that infest the warmosphere haven’t actually got any science so all they can do is pick on Willie Soon and his “massive” funding from fossil fuel interests
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/03/11/climate_change_denial_anti_reality_mongers_are_in_trouble.html

    On the other hand, the warmists are happy to accept fossil fuel company funding for “their” science.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on March 13, 2015 at 7:54 pm said:

    Just when you thought you’d read the craziest article on climate………

    ‘Scientific American Says Slavery Caused The Little Ice Age’

    by Steven Goddard

    Just when you thought Scientific American couldn’t get any more unscientific or anti-American.

    [See the crazy article and link]

    CO2 is the most prominent greenhouse gas? A drop of 7 ppm CO2 caused the little ice age? These people are completely insane.

    They have blocked me from commenting

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/scientific-american-says-slavery-caused-the-little-ice-age/

  30. Richard C (NZ) on March 14, 2015 at 8:48 am said:

    ‘Setting The Terms Of Debate: Read This Senator’s Letter To The Editor The Washington Post Refused To Publish’

    Sen. James Inhofe

    The Washington Post recently published an editorial attempting to discredit a recent speech I made on the U.S. Senate floor. I wanted to respond to the paper and set the record straight about why I gave the speech, so I submitted an op-ed and an alternative “Letter to the Editor” to the Washington Post.

    The paper not only rejected my op-ed, but also rejected my letter to the editor because it did not fit within the parameters of debate that they set. This is not surprising. Much like Congressional Democrats’ recent efforts to chill the climate debate within the scientific community, the Washington Post, and many other entities in the mainstream media, are trying to control the climate debate in the public sphere. The paper had the liberty to respond to my floor statement with the points that they so desired, but did not give me the same opportunity in return.

    I appreciate the Daily Caller for giving me a voice on this issue by publishing below my op-ed response I submitted to the Washington Post. The italicized portion is the material that I condensed for my second submission, which was a letter to the editor that was also rejected:

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/11/setting-the-terms-of-debate-read-the-letter-to-the-editor-the-washington-post-refused-to-publish/

  31. Richard C (NZ) on March 16, 2015 at 7:50 am said:

    Devastating super cyclone rips through Vanuatu and all available aid is being mobilized, Jessica Mendoza at the Christian Science Monitor asks “Are the Pacific Islands ready?” in the context of climate change (never mind the cyclone):

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0314/Cyclone-Pam-and-climate-change-Are-the-Pacific-Islands-ready-video

    Appears CSM has ceased monitoring science.

    BTW, kiwifruit season starts next week and many Vanutuans (100s), male and female, are brought here to BoP to work the season (RSEs). 45 men are already here which makes it very difficult for their families back home. Other Vanuatuans are already working elsewhere on other harvests. Been on the news, a difficult time for them not being able to contact or help at home too. I’ve worked with many of them, great bunch. For some reason their life expectancy is very short, not much more than 60.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on March 16, 2015 at 8:06 am said:

    ‘Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world’s leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows’

    By Professor Michael Kelly For The Mail On Sunday, Published: 14 March 2015 | Updated: 15 March 2015

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html

  33. Richard C (NZ) on March 16, 2015 at 8:24 am said:

    ‘John Kerry: Secretary of Mis-State?’

    by Tim Ball

    The Washington Examiner headline says, “John Kerry calls climate change deniers members of ‘Flat Earth Society’.” It typifies all reports about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s head-on attack on scientists trying to practice properly skeptical science. I challenge John Kerry to produce a single person who studies climate who denies climate change. Apparently everybody, except John Kerry, knows that climate changes all the time, it always has and it always will.

    In statements made to support his political agenda, Kerry manages to perpetuate a series of errors, myths and slurs……….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/john-kerry-secretary-of-mis-state/

  34. Graphite on March 16, 2015 at 3:54 pm said:

    But should we expect ocean “acidification” to be happening? No. Despite almost 300 years of industrialization, with all the benefits that has brought to Man, one of the biggest secrets in the climate debate is that, to the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air at all.

    ++++++++++++++++

    Should not those last five words be “in the sea at all”?

  35. HemiMck on March 16, 2015 at 6:58 pm said:

    Hi Graphite,

    No I think it is OK if convoluted. 400 parts per million in the atmosphere amounts to 0.04% i.e. less than 1/10 of one percent – essentially nothing at all. What he is trying to saying is that if acidification is to come from higher CO2 in the atmosphere don’t expect too much to change.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on March 17, 2015 at 8:34 am said:

    The term climate change “megalomaniac” seems to be gaining traction – Steyn via Nova:

    ‘Kingsman — a movie where the villain is a climate change megalomaniac’

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/kingsman-a-movie-where-the-villain-is-a-climate-change-megalomaniac/

    UNFCCC’s Christiana Figueres having cemented her megalomaniac status I think.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on March 17, 2015 at 10:37 am said:

    ‘The coming climate court’ The proposed Paris agreement is another reach for global power.

    By Chris Horner – – Sunday, March 8, 2015

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/8/chris-horner-paris-climate-agreement-a-global-powe/print/

    ‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth’

    International Climate Justice Tribunal

    https://pwccc.wordpress.com/category/working-groups/05-climate-justice-tribunal/

    Alternative Regionalisms – Part of the Economic Justice programme

    International Climate Justice Tribunal

    http://www.tni.org/events/international-climate-justice-tribunal

    Time For Climate Justice

    Welcome to our Ideal World clouds, filled with hopes for the future.

    Browse the clouds and add your vision for your Ideal World 2030.

    http://www.climatejusticeonline.org/

    ###

    My Ideal World 2030 vision is a world free of climate megalomaniacs.

  38. Richard Treadgold on March 17, 2015 at 11:36 am said:

    OMG! Do you mean they’re talking about THIS planet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation