Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate

[John Reece]

The only possible excuse the industrialised countries will have is that if, when they discovered the problem they did their best to fix it. The deniers are working to obfuscate and cover up the wrongdoing which might make a legal defence more difficult in the long term.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Roy...nce-causes.pdf

The document presented via the link is itself a masterpiece of obfuscation.

For instance, it begins by asking "Is the Climate Warming?" and then presents an answer that fails to note the fact that for the past nearly two decades there has been zero discernible increase in average global surface temperature.

The document is thus demonstrably deceptive and dishonest.

See here, here, and especially here.

[Sparko]

The only possible excuse the industrialised countries will have is that if, when they discovered the problem they did their best to fix it. The deniers are working to obfuscate and cover up the wrongdoing which might make a legal defence more difficult in the long term.

Do you know what question begging is? you should. You do it so well.

[John Reece]

More re Professor Caleb Rossiter

Caleb S. Rossiter Fallout: Academics Worldwide Condemn “Dark Age” Intellect Of Institute For Policy Studies

By P Gosselin on 15. Juni 2014

There’s plenty of controversy swirling around the fellowship termination of Caleb S. Rossiter, adjunct professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics and School of International Service, American University. Read the background here at Climate Depot.

The stated mission of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is to put “ideas into action for peace, justice, and the environment“. These are noble aims, but can be achieved only by finding good solutions, solutions that can be reached only through open, honest discussion.

I was interested in getting reaction from other leading scientists, journalists and academics on the matter, and so I sent e-mails asking them to comment. Much to my satisfaction, most of them replied. Their comments on the Rossiter fellowship termination follow.

See ten interesting comments by scientists, and one by an economic publicist, in the U.S.A., Sweden, Germany, Czech Republic, Canada, Italy, and Holland here.

[firstfloor]

The document presented via the link is itself a masterpiece of obfuscation.

Some people think that they are entitled to their own facts. They’re not. When the polluter gets to court and tries to claim that they know better than both the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society they are going to have to come up with even greater expertise to argue their case – and there is none.

[John Reece]

Some people think that they are entitled to their own facts. They’re not. When the polluter gets to court and tries to claim that they know better than both the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society they are going to have to come up with even greater expertise to argue their case – and there is none.

What is the difference between your use of the word "polluter" and the defamatory Alinskyite abuse of the word in the fact-filled and fact-checked article titled "American Lung Association Manipulates ‘Maternal Instinct’ to Sell EPA Power Grab" (posted at http://www.globalwarming.org)?

American Lung Association Manipulates ‘Maternal Instinct’ to Sell EPA Power Grab

by MARLO LEWIS on JUNE 15, 2014

The American Lung Association (ALA) has launched a TV and digital ad campaign touting EPA’s Clean Power Plan, also called the carbon “pollution” rule for existing power plants.

ALA’s Facebook page offers a brief explanation:

Power plant pollution is a serious threat to our health, especially to kids. Check out our new television commercial to see what we’re doing to standup for little lungs vs. big polluters.

The commercial, titled “Mother’s Instinct,” features a baby boy in a crib with a monitor that lets Mom (and us) hear him breathing.

Here’s the text:

The Clean Air Act stops polluters from poisoning his [the baby's] air with arsenic, lead, and mercury. Now the loophole that let’s them pump unlimited carbon pollution into his air is closing too . . . if polluters and their friends in Washington don’t interfere. Don’t let polluters weaken our clean air protection.

As the narrator says the words “if polluters,” the baby disappears from the screen and instead we see what looks like smoke billowing out of the stack of a coal power plant.

Fact check time.

[Sparko]

What is the difference between your use of the word "polluter" and the defamatory Alinskyite abuse of the word in the fact-filled and fact-checked article titled "American Lung Association Manipulates ‘Maternal Instinct’ to Sell EPA Power Grab" (posted at http://www.globalwarming.org)?

American Lung Association Manipulates ‘Maternal Instinct’ to Sell EPA Power Grab

by MARLO LEWIS on JUNE 15, 2014

The American Lung Association (ALA) has launched a TV and digital ad campaign touting EPA’s Clean Power Plan, also called the carbon “pollution” rule for existing power plants.

ALA’s Facebook page offers a brief explanation:

Power plant pollution is a serious threat to our health, especially to kids. Check out our new television commercial to see what we’re doing to standup for little lungs vs. big polluters.

The commercial, titled “Mother’s Instinct,” features a baby boy in a crib with a monitor that lets Mom (and us) hear him breathing.

Here’s the text:

The Clean Air Act stops polluters from poisoning his [the baby's] air with arsenic, lead, and mercury. Now the loophole that let’s them pump unlimited carbon pollution into his air is closing too . . . if polluters and their friends in Washington don’t interfere. Don’t let polluters weaken our clean air protection.

As the narrator says the words “if polluters,” the baby disappears from the screen and instead we see what looks like smoke billowing out of the stack of a coal power plant.

Fact check time.

er.... isn't carbon dioxide what we EXHALE? That little baby is just another carbon polluter!!! He should have been aborted to keep our carbon footprint down.

[Just Some Dude]

But wouldn't the mother have a greater carbon footprint, being more fully grown than the babe?

[John Reece]

Climate Mafia Chronicles

POSTED ON JUNE 16, 2014 BY STEVEN HAYWARD

CLIMATE MAFIA CHRONICLES

Okay, this Obama guy is really starting to annoy me. John has already noted Obama’s risible comments about “climate deniers” in the commencement address he gave at UC Irvine the other day, and as I argued last week in the Weekly Standard, Obama and the rest of the climatistas are swatting after the thinnest of straw men, as there is virtually no one who is saying climate change doesn’t happen. The climatistas resolutely refuse to engage in any deliberations about the question of how much, and refuse to consider alternatives to their lust to gain control of the energy sector.

Instead the climatistas continue to behave like a cross between a religious cult and the mafia. The latest outrage concerns Caleb Rossiter, a left-leaning professor of media studies at American University and a fellow with the very-left Institute for Policy Studies who wrote a terrific op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change.” Rossiter makes a simple point that escapes the climate policy “reality deniers” (sauce for the goose I say) that requiring expensive energy in an energy-staved world is to condemn millions of people to continue their lives of misery. The agenda of the climatistas is just a new form of neocolonialism, Rossiter thinks:

[Sparko]

Mafia?

More like:

[John Reece]

'Team Science' Suppression

From Watts Up With That (color emphasis added):

Another example of ‘team science’ suppression

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Anthony Watts

Over the past decade, we have seen many examples of what would be categorized as ”team science” when it comes to suppressing ideas that are considered inconvenient or contrary to belief systems in climate science. Over at the blog Bishop Hill, one such example was illustrated today by an academic who describes himself as a statistician, who attracted the attention of “team science” by simply doing a straightforward and honest statistical analysis on ice core data.

He and his students did an analysis on Vostok ice core data, eliminated noise and seasonal variation, did the usual tests for statistical significance, noted what they had discovered and presented it to ”a noted society”. The response of the society was shocking to say the least, so much so that this statistician considered leaving academia. Here are some excerpts:

During the analysis, we noticed many interesting features, especially during the present interglacial, which seems to have a ‘seasonality’. We estimated the seasonality and proceeded to remove it, using a technique I teach in their course, in order to find the underlying trend.

Having done this, we noted that not only was there underlying further seasonality and cycles, but that firstly the temperature according to the proxy record was considerably below its maximum and also secondly that the temperature was rapidly decreasing.

Next we looked at the carbon dioxide content. The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.

These findings were presented at a small conference at one of the major learned societies.

…

Several months afterwards, the society’s ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.

Climate skeptics are often described by the proponents of global warming as being ”anti-science”. Yet, here we have probably the most blatant example of anti-science behavior on display.

You can read the entire article at the Bishop Hill blog here:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014...ate-arena.html

It is well worth your time.

It is unfortunate though, that this academic has chosen not to identify himself and to speak up to his colleagues about this treatment and behavior. Doing so is the only way to push back against this sort of censorship of science.