Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

I have just been chatting to my son in Antarctica in the last hour and there are two groups of scientists at Casey Station....All up there are 75 personal manning the station.

One group is studying the sea ice, while the other is studying the Glaciers.

I don't have a link and probably should not post this without a link so you will have to take my word for it, but they are saying the burning of fossils fuels do have a minor influence but the Sun also plays a major part....Non of them can really say what it will be like in 50 or 100 years from now but they are saying there could be some sea level rises, but once again to what extent no one really knows.

There has been comment down there that Al Gore has exaggerated Global Warming 10 fold just to make money on emissions trading schemes.

I trust the moderators will accept my post without a link.

How come you're suspicious of the left and greens but not at all suspicious of the Right and the "climate realist"?

Fair enough to be sceptical of the hippies do gooders, but come on noco. If Al Gore can benefit from the carbon trading scheme so exaggerate CC and fossil's role in it... who else would benefit from denying fossil have no role in what CC?


I think the Sun is the problem all along. IF there's no Sun, we can have all the CO2 and methan and whatever gas that traps heat.

 

[wayneL]

The Guardian prints facts with proper notation.

Thanks Plod, got a good chuckle from that one

 

[noco]

Thanks Plod, got a good chuckle from that one

And so did I....Both the ABC and the Guardian have even confessed to exaggerating and making false claims.

 

[Logique]

Page 444 of this thread!

I don't know which is flat-lining the most in the public opinion. The extreme claims of some of the AGW zealots, or Malcolm Turnbull's PM'ship.

Nobody wanted to talk AGW during the latest Fed election campaign.

 

[explod]

Makes pretty clear sense to me: from the Guardian, was also on ABC and commercial radio this morning.

Great Barrier Reef scientists confirm largest die-off of corals recorded
Higher sea temperatures have led to the worst bleaching event on record, new study finds, with coral predicted to take up to 15 years to recover
Play VideoPlay
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 3:00
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
FullscreenMute
Terry Hughes: coral bleaching ‘has changed the Great Barrier Reef forever’
Guardian staff and agencies
Tuesday 29 November 2016 06.49 AEDT
View more sharing options
Shares
314
Comments
101
A new study has found that higher water temperatures have ravaged the Great Barrier Reef, causing the worst coral bleaching recorded by scientists.

In the worst-affected area, 67% of a 700km swath in the north of the reef lost its shallow-water corals over the past eight to nine months, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies based at James Cook University study found.

“Most of the losses in 2016 have occurred in the northern, most-pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef,” Prof Terry Hughes said. “This region escaped with minor damage in two earlier bleaching events in 1998 and 2002, but this time around it has been badly affected.”

Play VideoPlay
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:51
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
FullscreenMute
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Great Barrier Reef: diving in the stench of millions of rotting animals
The southern two-thirds of the reef escaped with minor damage, Hughes said. This part was protected from the rising sea temperatures because of cooler water from the Coral Sea.

Scientists expect that the northern region will take at least 10 to 15 years to regain the lost corals but are concerned a fourth bleaching event could interrupt the slow recovery.

The dire assessment of the reef’s health comes as the Australian government is due to report to Unesco’s world heritage committee on its handling of the reef.

After the federal government submits the report Unesco will decide whether to again consider listing the Great Barrier Reef on its “list of world heritage in danger”.

The government will need to report on how it has funded and implemented its Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan, as well as how the bleaching event has affected the reef.

Since it last considered including the Great Barrier Reef on its list, the reef has undergone the worst bleaching event in recorded history. According to government agencies, 22% of the reef was killed in one hit, as unusually warm waters bleached and killed the coral.

Climate change is intergenerational theft. That's why my son is part of this story
Naomi Klein
Read more
Climate change poses such a threat to the reef that the former head of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has called for a ban on all new coalmines in Australia to protect the reef from climate change.

Graeme Kelleher, who was the first chief executive of the authority, a position he held for 16 years, said: “Australia cannot have a healthy Great Barrier Reef and a continuing coal industry.

“I love the reef and I have worked to preserve it since 1979; I will oppose anything that threatens to destroy it,” he said.

 

[noco]

Makes pretty clear sense to me: from the Guardian, was also on ABC and commercial radio this morning.

Well, it did not take long to find out about Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein is a member of the Fabian Society...She is a socialist left from Canada...She is anti capitalism....anti coal mines ...anti development and her criticism of the Great Barrier Reef is highly exaggerated.

The Great Barrier Reef is in great shape and has gone through severe stress over the past 500,00 years.....Most of any coral bleaching recovers within 12 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein

 

[noco]

Makes pretty clear sense to me: from the Guardian, was also on ABC and commercial radio this morning.

Graeme Kelleher, who was the first chief executive of the authority, a position he held for 16 years, said: “Australia cannot have a healthy Great Barrier Reef and a continuing coal industry.

“I love the reef and I have worked to preserve it since 1979; I will oppose anything that threatens to destroy it,” he said.


Graeme Kelleher was a civil engineer and past CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority who has expressed his personal view on the Barrier Reef and is not necessarily the view of the Marine Authority.

Graeme Kelleher is a member of the Greens Party and is obviously anti coal mines.

That whole article posted by Explod is a typical fabrication of the truth particularly when one see the involvement of the Guardian and the ABC.

I for one cannot place a lot of credence in that article given the past history of lies and fabrications admitted to by the Guardian and the ABC.

 

[SirRumpole]

I for one cannot place a lot of credence in that article given the past history of lies and fabrications admitted to by the Guardian and the ABC.

Not to mention all those biased scientists all over the world lying their heads off to keep their jobs.

Filthy Commies.

 

[Knobby22]

Not to mention all those biased scientists all over the world lying their heads off to keep their jobs.

Filthy Commies.

And don't forget that evil David Attenborough.

 

[noco]

Professor Peter Ridd of JCU Townsville has studied the Great Barrier Reef for 30 + years.......I have met Peter on two occasions as President of the AWWA and found both he and the late Professor Bob Carter to be of good character who were both very open minded about the Reef.

Peter was outspoken and critical of some of the lies and propaganda being spruiked about the reef and silenced with the threat of the sack by the JCU......HOW DARE THEY.?

I ask all viewers to read the link from beginning to end.

NB. Much of the reef that has recently been affected is north of Cooktown where there is no coal mines or agricultural run off from sugar cane farms.

Naomi Klein visited the reef, did a video of the bad areas but did not video the good areas.....There was no indication of which part of the 2,500 km long reef she visited.

More lies and propaganda to make out the reef is totally destroyed......These people could not lie straight in bed.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...y/news-story/c7aa0e0ac1c1dec1b065273d2e968f6d


When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.

After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.

His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.

“These photographs are a big deal as they are plastered right across the internet and used very widely to claim damage,” Professor Ridd told The Weekend Australian.

The photographs were taken near Stone Island off Bowen. A photograph taken in the late 19th century shows healthy coral. An accompanying picture supposedly of the same reef in 1994 is *devoid of coral. When the before-and-after shots were used by GBRMPA in its 2014 report, the authority said: “Historical photographs of inshore coral reefs have been especially powerful in illustrating changes over time, and that the change illustrated is typical of many inshore reefs.”

Professor Ridd said it was only possible to guess within a kilometre or two where the original photograph was taken and it would not be unusual to find great coral in one spot and nothing a kilometre away, as his researchers had done. Nor was it possible to say what had killed the coral in the 1994 picture.

“In fact, there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the Great Barrier Reef which was killed due to the slow sea-level fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years,” he said. “My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?”

A GBRMPA spokesman said last night “the historical photos serve to demonstrate the vulnerability of nearshore coral reefs, rather than a specific cause for their decline.

“Ongoing monitoring shows coral growth in some locations, however this doesn’t detract from the bigger picture, which shows shallow inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef south of Port Douglas have clearly degraded over a period of decades.” Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies chairman Terry Hughes did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian.

Professor Ridd was disciplined for breaching principle 1 of JCU’s code of conduct by “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues”. He has been told that if he does it again he may be found guilty of *serious misconduct.

A JCU spokesman said it was university policy not to comment on individual staff, but that the university’s marine science was subject to “the same quality assurance processes that govern the conduct of, and delivery of, *science internationally”.

This is the crux of the issue for Professor Ridd: “I feel as though I am the whistleblower.”

His potential downfall is the *result of a long campaign for better quality assurance standards for ocean and reef research, which has come under fire globally for exaggerating bad news and ignoring the good. Reef politics is a hot topic in the wake of widescale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef as part of what US agencies have called the world’s third mass-bleaching event.

James Cook University's Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville's Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird
James Cook University's Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville's Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird

About a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef has died and could take years to rebuild. The damage is concentrated in the northern section off Cape York. The scientific response to the bleaching has exposed a rift *between GBRMPA and the JCU’s Coral Bleaching Taskforce led by Professor Hughes over how bleaching data should be treated and presented to the public. Conservation groups have run hard on the issue, with graphic *images of dying corals. All sides of politics have responded with *increased funding to reduce sediment flow and to combat crown of thorns starfish.

University of Western Australia marine biologist Carlos Duarte argued in BioScience last year that bias contributed to “perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence”.

A paper published this year claimed scientific journals had exaggerated bad news on ocean acidification and played down the doubts. Former GBRMPA chairman Ian McPhail accused activists of “exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain”. Dr McPhail told The Weekend Australian it “seems that there is a group of researchers who begin with the premise that all is disaster”.
Concerns about quality assurance in science are not confined to the reef. Drug-makers generated headlines when they were unable to replicate the results of landmark studies in the basic science of cancer. Professor Ridd poses the question: “Is the situation in marine science likely to be worse than in medicine and pharmaceuticals, psychology, education? Do we have a decent system of replication and checking of results?

“Is there a chance that many marine scientists are partially driven by ideology? Is there a chance that peer review among this group is self-selecting of the dominant idea? Is there a robust debate without intimidation?”

Professor Ridd wants an independent agency to check the science before governments commit to spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is no doubt the current bleaching is a serious event but there are also many questions still to be answered. The consensus position of reef experts is that bleaching events will get worse as ocean temperatures continue to rise because of climate change.

 

[explod]

The punch line in the following is this statement: "It's not the expected signature of climate change," lead researcher Michael Tippett told Christopher Joyce at NPR, "it could be either something else, or we really don't understand what climate change is doing."

So "we don't really understand" and by ignoring the overall issue we are playing with fire and the future for our children.

Tornado outbreaks in the US are getting worse, and no one knows why
Twister chains are twice as big as they used to be.
PETER DOCKRILL 2 DEC 2016
If you're lucky, you and your family won't ever be seriously threatened by a tornado – but if the worst happens, chances are that tornado probably didn't come alone.

Tornado outbreaks – mega-storms in which a cluster of six or more tornadoes occur in close succession – are responsible for nearly 80 percent of tornado-related fatalities in the US. And the worst part is, these deadly chains of twisters have been getting even more intense in recent years.

Earlier in the year, researchers led by Columbia University found that the average number of tornadoes making up these outbreaks had risen since the 1950s, increasing from about 10 per year back then to about 15 per year now.

But new research published by the same team has found that something even scarier is going on.

Looking at records from the last 50 years, the researchers found that the frequency of US outbreaks with multiple tornadoes is increasing – and is rising faster for the most extreme outbreaks.

In the worst of these storms, outbreaks can contain dozens of individual twisters that collectively wreak havoc over a large region for days at a time.

Between 1965 and 2015, the researchers identified 435 of these extreme events, and during that timeframe, the membership in these mega-storms effectively doubled, from an estimated 40 twisters per outbreak in 1965 to nearly 80 in 2015.

Outside these trends, rogue outbreaks are even deadlier. The worst tornado outbreak ever occurred in 2011, spawning more than 360 tornadoes across the US and Canada, and killing some 348 people.

Before that, a 148-twister outbreak in 1974 claimed 319 victims.

But while freak storms like that don't fit into the overall patterns, it's clear that tornado outbreaks are getting worse, but why?

"It's not the expected signature of climate change," lead researcher Michael Tippett told Christopher Joyce at NPR, "it could be either something else, or we really don't understand what climate change is doing."

While the team did originally suspect that global warming could be tied to the tornado outbreaks, the data didn't bear that out.

The researchers analysed meteorological data sets generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), looking out for two factors in particular.

One of these factors, called convective available potential energy (CAPE), is a measure of energy in the atmosphere; the other factor is a measure of vertical wind shear, called storm relative helicity.

Conventional modelling suggests that CAPE will increase in a warmer climate, which could induce greater storm activity.

But the data the researchers looked at suggested the rise in tornado outbreaks wasn't in line with CAPE, but instead with trends in storm relative helicity – which had not been projected to increase under climate change.

The upshot then is that we know tornado outbreaks are getting worse, but we don't know why – and as far as we can tell right now, it's not clearly linked to climate change.

"The findings are surprising," said one of the team, Joel Cohen, in a statement. "What's pushing this rise in extreme outbreaks is far from obvious in the present state of climate science."

Despite the ambiguity, other researchers say it's important to follow these trails as far as they go, as even the apparent dead ends help to increase our understanding of these changes in extreme weather patterns.

"The study is important because it addresses one of the hypotheses that has been raised to explain the observed change in number of tornadoes in outbreaks," says meteorologist Harold Brooks from the NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, who was not involved with the study.

"Changes in CAPE can't explain the change. It seems that changes in shear are more important, but we don't yet understand why those have happened and if they're related to global warming."

If there is a definite answer, it's that there will be plenty more work needed to get to the bottom of what's inducing these deadly storms to swell so dangerously.

"We know temperature is going up, we know some things pretty sure, but the details of the weather – there's a lot more uncertainty," Tippett told Grennan Milliken at Motherboard.

"The answer to the question can tell us what to expect in the future. That's why we think it's an important question."

 

[basilio]

Our rapidly changing world

The reality of rapid global warming is affecting the environment everywhere. Check it out

'Nowhere on earth safe' from climate change as survival challenge grows
Peter Hannam

Peter Hannam


As if humans weren't making it hard enough for the world's creatures great and small.

Evidence continues to mount that global warming is having an impact on ecosystems across the planet in a myriad of ways, altering both individual species and ecological communities.
Thirty years of Arctic ice decay

Incredible animated video released by NASA shows the drastic change of the Arctic ice shelves over thirty years.

"There's really nowhere on earth where the natural systems are not being affected by climate change," Lesley Hughes, a professor of biology at Macquarie University, said.

"Climate change is simply an additional stress on already stressed ecosystems," Professor Hughes said, listing habitat loss, pollution and over-exploitation among the existing challenges.
Related Content

Threat to NASA climate role a 'disaster' for global warming action
NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts

A recent paper in Science surveyed research on 94 core ecological processes and found 82 per cent were already revealing climate change impacts as temperatures warmed.

James Watson, a conservation biologist at the University of Queensland and one of the paper's authors, said people often fixated on polar bears, penguins or another emblematic species.

"They think, 'that's miles away from me; it's a pity but it doesn't affect me'," Professor Watson said. "It's everything that's affected."
Here are six key areas of change:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...survival-challenge-grows-20161123-gsvgcj.html

 

[Wysiwyg]

7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

7:2-3 "And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea," "Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."

 

[Wysiwyg]

8:6-7 "And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound." "The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up."

It's all there, foretold eons ago.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I have another good idea. Enough solar panels covering the planet will soak up the radiation from that mass of hydrogen doing so much damage to poor little human beans. Maybe human beans can design the planet better than nature. Government rebates on air conditioners and a planet wide turn on your air con. day once a year.

 

[wayneL]

Not to mention all those biased scientists all over the world lying their heads off to keep their jobs.

I have said this before in this thread, but....

I have several CSIRO scientists as clients. We often chat how this is indeed often the case, not just in climate science, every field.

My wife's dearest friend (now deceased ) was a PhD in gene technology and safety officer (not sure of the exact title) at UWA. Basically she was overseer of every study done there in her field. She reckoned no more than 10% of science conducted was fair dinkum and used to have all sort of problems with her dept and in ensuring the integrity of studies.

I myself am a consumer of science in my own field. Most of it is just farkin laughable and results in all sorts of misery for equines.

Scientists are not some special breed of human (except in *very* rare cases), they are just average morons like all of us, subject to all the usual foibles, biases, vested interest, mercantilism that we are.

So FFS stop this appeal to authority fallacy.

Doubt everything, test everything, repeat everything and ask the most important question - qui bono? Follow the Goddamn money folks... and don't immediately exercise your raging bias by looking to oil companies. The money trail is a labrinth.

 

[wayneL]

Horace, basilio, Plod, Knobby et al.

Have a read of this article by Pielke Jr (Who is not a warming skeptic) if you please. It is emblematic of the state of debate.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

Somewhat reproduced at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/04/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/ if you don't have a WSJ sub.

Roger Pielke Jr.: My unhappy life as a climate heretic

My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.
By Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writing in the Wall Street Journal h/t to multiple sources
Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by*John Podesta*in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for*Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors,*Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”
WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research””which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.
I understand why Mr. Podesta””most recently*Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman””wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.
More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests””even our own?
I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.
Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy*signaled*that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.
Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.
When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.
The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.
Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.
For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the*New York Times,Justin Gillis,had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his*Twitter*feed. Other reporters did the same.
In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable*about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse””including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor,*Andrew Freedman,*helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”
I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.
Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.
Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting*Roger Pielke*will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”
Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My*first article*there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.
That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.
In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor*Mike Wilson*demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer*Brad Johnson,*and advised by Penn State’s*Michael Mann,called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.
Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program.*Those conclusions*indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts””in the U.S. or globally.
In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser*John Holdren*testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.
I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed*reads*more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.
But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep.*Raul Grijalva,*the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.
The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I””and six other academics with apparently heretical views””might be on the payroll of*Exxon Mobil*(or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.
But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point.

 

[Tisme]

. She reckoned no more than 10% of science conducted was fair dinkum and used to have all sort of problems with her dept and in ensuring the integrity of studies.

I'd suspect 90% is filling out procedural, policy and other non productive forms which keeps 90% of the public service shuffling paper and in a job too. In return they get an over inflated wage, salary sacrificed superdupa superannuation, a negatively geared house paid by taxpayers and flexitime to do as little as possible in a very small productivity window whilst reading the latest trends in science China and India.

 

[explod]

‘There is no evidence’ ”” Yes, there is
By Coby Beck on Oct 27, 2006
Share Tweet
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)

Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.

Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places ”” in England, for example ”” that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt
There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

That last sentence is the nail.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/

 

[Knobby22]

It won't work. As Malcolm Roberts said, there is no real damage to the barrier reef and the Bureau of Meteorology is manipulating data. you could stand him on the north pole in 10 years time and as he is drowning he will say that there is plenty of snow and someone has put him in the North Sea and that the satellite data is a plot.

He can't see that but he complains we can't see the obvious things like the fact the Rothschild's killed JFK.