Guest contribution by Rud Istvan,
I’ve pondered some of my recent comments / posts at both WUWT and Climate Etc. A pattern became apparent that I would like to try to explain. The motivation is simple. The climate / energy debate has gone beyond what he said / said ‘facts’. Koonin’s new book Uncertainty (which I just read and which originally inspired this guest post) goes a long way towards creating a more nuanced perspective by eliminating the factual climate of “inaccuracy” (aka wrong stuff) and the “uncertainty” that goes with it. (aka unrecognizable stuff) in the EU highlights climate debate. But his “science” approach sometimes lacks counters for the additional “religious climate believers” addressed here, although Koonin carelessly touches on it in his final chapters. This post is not that light touch on purpose.
As an introductory example, “climate believers” ignore the disruption and lack of grid inertia that their Green New Deal (GND) solutions automatically introduce. This can only be due to physical ignorance of the complex mathematics of AC electricity (a + bi using the square root of minus 1, which physically indicates a phase shift). But after a lot of blog interactions, I now think this is more likely due to willful ignorance, which is defined in US law as “criminal gross negligence” … “knew or should have known”.
There are many other examples of climate science “criminal gross negligence”.
For example, Dr. Susan Crockford exposes the “polar bear experts” who claim polar bears are endangered by (modeled) diminished arctic sea ice in summer when the truth is that about 80% of their annual caloric intake depends on the world seal season. when no one claims arctic ice is waning.
For example, the claimed GAST temperature rise depends on a ‘negligible’ (per BEST) UHI plus insufficient land-based monitoring stations filled for global coverage. A classic example of the latter is the BEST station 166900 (footnote 24 on the article When data is not included in the Blowing Smoke e-book). BEST 166900 is the Amundsen Scott of the South Pole, probably the most expensive and best-maintained weather station in the world. The best ‘automatic adjustment algorithm’ compared it to McMurdo, 1300 km away on the coast and 2700 m below. The BEST quality control algorithm concluded that the Amundsen Scott measurements for 26 extremely cold months based on McMurdo need to be excluded – NOT. BEST automatic but incorrectly heated Amundsen Scott.
For example, Fabricius (NCC, 2011) claimed that corals in Milne Bay were declining due to ocean acidification (OA). Their SI showed that their sterile seepage (pH 7.8) was toxic due to H2S, just as toxic to marine organisms as cyanide to us – and for the same reasons. (Essay Shell Games in the e-book Blowing Smoke, the first of two important illustrated and extensively footnoted examples in this e-book essay debunking the Seattle Times main series, Sea Change.)
There are many other similar guest posts below here and at Climate Etc.
How does this climate version of true science continue over several decades? What motivates obvious willful “criminal gross negligence”?
There are at least three answers why the “gross negligence of the climate” continues.
First is money in the form of tenure and government grants. Go with me to get along. Mann’s counterfeit paleo hockey stick from 1999 is just one famous example. He got rich and was put on VERY bad paper as he was thoroughly discredited. His bank account doesn’t matter.
Second is academic acceptance; Peer pressure if you will. This is what Dr. Judith Curry, according to her own statement, drifted from the position of Chair of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech. Young climatologists hoping to move up cannot be apostates, and she could not, in good conscience, advise them otherwise.
Third is “be cool”. There is no other explanation for John Kerry than Biden’s “Climate Bazaar”. It’s stupid and ultimately self-destructive, but definitely a huge plus at any current MA cocktail party. AOC and their GND are a lesser example of the same “cool” Brooklyn social phenomenon in Congress.
So what to do
There may be some effective counters beyond “science” that true climate believers seem immune to. The following three suggestions all come from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” which have long been used against skeptics who have been labeled as deniers. My suggestion is a counterattack, not using the Marquis of Queensbury rules that skeptics normally use, but using the Alinsky rules.
First the enemy must be frozen and then ridiculed. Mark Steyn did this very effectively against man with his book “A Shame for the Job (Volume 1)”. Unassailable as Mann has not yet responded and it has now been years since the implied ‘Volume 2’ threat was voiced in writing.
Second, the enemy is supposed to live up to their own rules of climate science. This was Koonin’s central point and it was raised repeatedly in his new book.
Third, it is about going beyond the enemy’s expertise. Renewable interruptions and lack of grid inertia are examples previously discussed of expertise that the Greens ignore or do not even understand because they are outside their expertise.
Final thoughts
Many here at the WUWT may have thought, as I did before, that a “scientific” counter-argument against Warmunists is sufficient (see footnote 22 on the essay on climate astrososphistics in the e-book Blowing Smoke for the exact derivation). It doesn’t. They have a socio-religious belief system (Greta Thunberg as an example) that requires stronger countermeasures.
5
13th
voices
Item rating
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.