Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | May 18, 2011

Climate Scientists Won’t be Signing with a Label Anytime Soon

It had to happen.  Climate scientists in Australia, frustrated with the recalcitrance of an increasingly skeptical public, have perpetrated a rap video.  In it, they make the point that they are climate scientists.  That is the burden of their thesis:  they are climate scientists.  There’s a little business in the beginning about ice chunking off into the ocean, but the point they labor to make with this video is that they are climate scientists.

Interestingly, although I’m sure their credentials can be checked, the video does the opposite of reassure me about them.

Meanwhile, USA Today caused a burble in the blogosphere this week by comparing climate-change skeptics to Birthers.

Over at Slate, Brian Merchant last week revived blogosphere interest in a piece that appeared at FrumForum back in April, in which D.R. Tucker – who apparently had had no clear idea of why he was skeptical about anthropogenic global warming/climate change (AGW/CC) – announced that he had changed his mind, on reading the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report from 2007.

If you read through his piece, you realize that he genuinely seems to have had no idea whatsoever why he was once an AGW/CC skeptic.  He appears unfamiliar with any of the main features of the debate, and unaware of the persuasive counter-evidence about literally everything he refers to in his discussion, ticking off point after point as if there has been no challenge to the IPCC data or the conclusions of AGW/CC believers.

Fortunately, AGW/CC believer James Hansen of NASA, along with three colleagues, published a new study this month concluding that climate models have consistently overestimated net man-made effects on climate.  Sarcasm has ensued.  The IPCC, meanwhile, in the wake of the revelations about erroneous or undocumented claims in its Fourth Assessment Report, has decided to implement reforms designed to prevent such problems in the future.

So it’s all good.  The AGW/CC debate continues.  And now, we know who the climate scientists are.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.



  1. The Left was left in the lurch when the Wall came down, the USSR collapsed and communism was discredited. The Lefties shrewdly stopped focusing on Red (“the good of the people”) to Green (“the good of Mother Earth’). The beauty being that Mother Earth could never speak up for itself, but the Left could claim that the protection of Mother Earth was also ultimately protection of the “people.”

    I figure the reason the Left is desperately hanging on to the AGW/CC myth (esp after the Climategate emails) and comically instituting pretzel logic (i.e. CC causes both droughts and floods) is because the Left hasn’t figured out what political pretense it can use to replace AGW/CC.

    I’ve said here before that I have no doubt that the whole AGW/CC myth was created and is perpetuated by the Left to be used as a vehicle to amass political power so as to be able to socially engineer society as they see fit. No matter the brutality it imposes on the economy or to the liberties of the citizenry. The Left has an insatiable appetite to socially engineer society. The sooner people realize that the “global warming” crusade has, at its heart, *nothing* to do with the environment, the sooner it will mercifully follow communism into the dustbin.

  2. Hard to improve on what you say, Ritchie.

    I would just add that, while the Left is pushing the myth/religion of AGW/CC hard for its own political purposes, there are many nice, naive people out there who are just looking for a friendly, uplifting religious experience. And what could be better than a return to nature and the Polar bears? And talk of windmills and electric cars, and the goodness of humankind? And smaller carbon footprints for the non-elite. It’s all just so happy and uplifting. And it may even seem sophisticated to some, in some sad way, too.

    • DANoon, For those friendly people who want an uplifting religious experience, Lenin had a phrase for them. It hurts me to type that because I have lots of friends and family who buy into the AGW/CC myth. Even people who are politically agnostic seem to think there is a “global warming problem.” That’s from the incessant drumbeat from the media, academia and Hollywood that we have this looming crisis out there I figure.

      Going deeper, it is only because of the new found decadence of the West that people can spend their time worrying about the polar bears. At no prior point in history has anyone had the luxury of having the time or money to spend on such things. Life was too hard and demanding to be able to concern oneself with frivolities like the polar bears and spotted owls. The irony is that it was the very system of market capitalism that made it possible to have the leisure time and money to love a polar bear. Ironic because the Left tries to inhibit that system of market capitalism whenever it can to achieve it’s political goals.

  3. Perhaps the reason why D R Tucker is unaware of the “persuasive counter-evidence” is that there is none.

    The attitude of the ideologically driven far-right fringe to climate change is exactly the same as that of the Stalinist-era ideologically driven far-left to genetics.

    The following are scientific facts: Burning hydrocarbons generates carbon-dioxide. Carbon-dioxide has a far greater ‘greenhouse effect’ than oxygen or nitrogen. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled in the past 60 years. Logic says that all other things being equal, the atmosphere would retain more of the sun’s heat as a result, and that there would be some warming of the environment. Voila! This is exactly what has happened. Measured average temperatures are increasing. Physical measurement and satelite photography show dramatic decreases in the ice-cover in the polar regions and the recession of the great glaciers. This is exactly what one might expect as a result of increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, it might not be down to the ‘greenhouse’ effect. It might be some (magically, unobserved) increase in sun-spot activity. It might be little faeries. It might even be all the hot-air produced by the enraged right-wing fringe. However, when scientific observation co-incides with scientific theory sentient human beings usually take heed. And that is what they have done. The vast majority of the scientific community, here and elsewhere, accepts that the burning of hydrocarbons is causing global-warming. There are dissagreements as to the rate of warming and it’s consequences. However, sentient human-beings adopt the precautionary principle when addressing matters of such import to the future of our one and only habitable planet.

    The general acceptance by the scientific-community (and by most of our politicians and policy-makers) of the fact and causes of climate change and the prudence of adopting the precautionary principle, is not some vast left-wing conspiracy. Neither is it something which will necessarily impoverish us if we act sensibly. We know the solutions and are developing the technologies. Those who, for incomprehensible ideological reasons, would see the United States turn its back on this challenge would effectively relegate our country into the third rank of technologies. Other nations are already ahead in strategic areas. The next generation of nuclear power generators will be foreign-designed and manufactured. The Danes are ahead on wind-power, and the French and Japanese on power-transmission. The ideologues would also condemn us to a strategically disasterous dependence on imported and fast-depleting oil.

    But I am an optimist. The United States has never been long diverted by the grim finger-wagging of ideological idiots. We are a can-do people. We are already stirring. Far-seeing and enterpreneurial people in both government, our research-institutions, and industry, see the challenge and the opportunity. I expect that we will be at the forefront of the post-hydrocarbon world, and pre-eminent in it.

  4. I note that what you have outlined, Paulite, is far from a “Ron Paul-ite” position.

    • “Paulite” is a Leftist trying to disguise himself, for whatever reason, as a Ron Paul-ite.

  5. Paulite: you write like you’re smoking some of the CO2 you’re so worried about.

    But I dig your point about the need for us to buy those foreign-designed and manufactured nuclear power generators. Power to the atoms!

    • Alas CO2 will only douse your dookey. It is a major component of what is inside most fire-extinguishers.

      We shouldn’t be buying French designed and manufactured nuclear reactors. We should be back there ahead of them (as we once were), and buying them from Babcock and GE – and exporting them as well.

  6. On the issue of global warming I will go with the overwhelming scientific evidence whether or not Ron Paul is in agreement. I would also be of the (non-Paulite) opinion that there is room for government to enable and encourage the private research and private industry that will develop the technologies of the future (particularly when foreign governments are spending billions on their own national champions irrespect of international trade rules). No more than the Manhattan Project would not have happened without government money, there is no chance that fusion power will ever be realized without government money and international co-operation.

    On the issue of defence and foreign-policy (and “aid”), and public spending on these and other wastefull and unproductive programmes I think Ron Paul has got it pretty much right.

    • I have Global Cooling T-Shirts left over from the 70’s. There were many manuals and articles concerning the coming Ice Age, moving to Mexico, hunger, starvation, how to start your car as a glacier is moving by.
      The same class of folks that brought Global Cooling now brings out the new and improved model Global Warming.
      Unfortunately the Hockey Stick has been shattered. The packaging has been changed to Climate Change.
      I await the next Fearful Product to be fostered on Boobus Americanus.

    • Concerning “the overwhelming scientific evidence”. NASA and other organizations with big brains and thermometers and stated the temperature on Mars is also increasing at about the same rate as the Earth.
      Logic says someone is burning hydrocarbons on Mars.
      OR perhaps the warming and cooling phases of both planets may have something to do with the large object at the center of our little 8 or 9 planet homestead. It also goes through phases with long and short extremes.

      • There is no truth whatsoever in this story about Mars. It is straight out of hangar 101. It is entirely an invention which you made-up, or were gullible enough to swallow.

        You should stick to this planet.

        • No comment on the Global Cooling scam of the 70’s ?

  7. Google Mars Warming. NASA, London Times, and many other sources will pop up on your screen. The best info is from Real Climate that “debunks warming on Mars because it is occuring but is All Natural and Dusty. That is to say it isn’t Man Made so it is okay.
    I will follow your admonition to stick to this planet. I can’t afford Bransons’ price.

  8. wreed — Paulite has a habit of making statements for which he offers no proof, such as the one that there is no truth about warming on Mars. NASA has been saying Mars is warming for years. If NASA is completely wrong about that, it certainly puts all other assertions from NASA in question.

    • Hi J.E. Just a sad note from Soonerland. Austin Box the starting linebacker for Oklahoma died yesterday. He graduated last week, but he had a year of eligibility left to play. He had suffered from serious knee injuries throughout his career. He really wanted to play.
      I am sure you probably already know, but just in case………….
      He was from Enid.

      • wreed — that was just awful about Austin Box. I heard Brent Venables’ brother died shortly thereafter too (the next day maybe?). What a sad, sad thing. I haven’t heard yet if they’ve determined a cause of death for Box or not. A bad day for Sooner fans, indeed.

    • No, OC, inaccuracy is your speciality, not mine.

      Mars is not “warming at the same rate as the Earth”.

      Mars is not warming because of the “burning of hydrocarbons”.

      The mechanisms that NASA posits as operating in Mars are insignificant operators in relation to our planet.

      NASA agrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus that this planet is undergoing rapid “global warming”, and that the principal mechanism driving this warming is the burning of hydrocarbons.

      Go check.

      However, I am glad that you have accepted NASA as a reliable source of scientific information and conclusions.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: