Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

Be strong and courageous

with 82 comments

Having posted something fairly controversial on Judith Curry’s blog earlier this week, I am now being referred to in absentia as ‘Joshua’ (for having the temerity to be so certain I am right and “sceptics” are wrong*). Maybe so, but such an accusation is no would not have been a substitute for not having a sound scientific basis for maintaining your “scepticism”. It is, however, entirely coincidental that this post should appear today (as I wrote and named it last Sunday).

* It turns out this was not the reason.


So said Moses to Joshua, apparently, before the Jews annexed Palestine for the first time in their long history. For the record, I am not anti-Israel. I recognise its right to exist; and so must all its Arab neighbours. Israel is there; and they need to get used to it. Indeed, both parties need to focus on achieving a two-state solution wherein everyone feels secure and there is no need for monoliths to human stupidity like the Peace Wall on the West Bank.

But, yet again, I am getting off-message… We are today in a battle, whether we know it or not, whether we want to be in it or not; we cannot escape from it. It is also a fight to the death; and a fight for survival – for the survival of modern civilisation on a habitable planet capable of supporting more than 6 billion people.

Unfortunately, a very small but powerful elite have been engaged in a guerilla war for at least the last 24 years in an attempt to prioritise their right to sell you stuff and provide you with fuel to pollute the atmosphere; to the detriment of the right of future generations to enjoy the planet as we were lucky enough to find it.

Although people like Peter Jacques have been telling us for years that “anti-environmentalism is an attitude that most citizens would consider a violation of the public interest” [Jacques, P. (2009), Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power and Public Life, Farnham: Ashgate (p.169)], it is only now, thanks to the self-sacrifice of Peter Gleick, that we have direct evidence of the lengths to which Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) will go to defend their pro-business agenda from demands that the right of nature to exist should also be respected. More than that, we now know of the depths to which CTTs will stoop to invert reality and corrupt the minds of schoolchildren. And all for what, exactly? James Hansen nailed that one in 2009, when he said: “Policy inaction is the aim of those that dispute global warming”.

However, as I demonstrated all last week, the CTTs may be providing the fuel for climate change denial but it is generally a scientifically-illiterate media that is perpetuating the myth that the science is unsettled (exactly as they did for decades in relation to cigarette-smoking). I say “generally” because, as I have demonstrated this week, we also have to defeat people like Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels and Roy Spencer who, for reasons best known to themselves, continue to provide a veneer of scientific credibility to the crusade to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD). In so doing, they continue to deny the reality of all the accumulating evidence that the Earth is now passing a tipping point; beyond which lies centuries of accelerating and/or rapid warming and sea level rise, which will only stop when the planet is ice-free (as it was 35 million years ago the last time atmospheric CO2 reached 450ppm).

In this context, I find myself asking if ad hominem attacks are ever justified? It is a tricky one: I try desperately hard to avoid them myself. I try very hard to shoot down the message; not the messenger. However, sometimes the irrationality of the blind prejudice that drives all these peddlers of misinformation is so blatant, it is hard to avoid the accusation of indulging in ad hom.. Take, as an example, James Delingpole and his book Watermelons. In the two quotes that follow, where does sarcasm end and ad hom begin?

However, although English, History and Geography were among my favourite subjects at school, I paid attention in science class and, by the age of 16, understood why scientists had changed their minds about an approaching ice age and were now concerned about global warming. Moreover, despite the absence of any discernible scientific understanding, James has convinced himself that Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) is a scam; whereas I understand that most relevantly-qualified scientists are convinced that ACD-denial is a scam.
(Martin Lack – ‘Background’ to Lack of Environment, August 2011).

I’m glad I don’t live in James Delingpole’s world. For this cut-price Telegraph blogger, everything exists in stark black and white, clearly delineated between good and evil – where “evil” is a sinister, UN-based, left-wing conspiracy to destroy industrialism, and “good” is represented by the efforts of a ragtag band of right-wing libertarians and climate-change deniers to beat the environmental communists/Nazis before they can take over the world. It is a schoolboy vision, deluded and naive, of a topsy-turvy world in which the Royal Society and other august scientific bodies are peopled by “liars, cheats and frauds”, while the little guy surfing the internet (Delingpole himself) who courageously disbelieves the white-coated “expert” elite is always right in the end.
(Mark Lynas – Review of ‘Watermelons: How Environmentalists Are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future’, in the New Statesman (16 February 2012)).

We therefore have two problems that we must tackle:
1. Very clever and highly intellectual misrepresentation of evidence; and/or
2. Very stupid and completely illogical misrepresentation of reality.

So, go forth today and do battle; and remember who and what it is you are fighting for.

About these ads

82 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I went to look at your “controversial” comment and the ensuing debates. Intense stuff!!! Lack of context (not knowing about Mr Lindzen) [To save others correcting you - that's Prof. Richard S. Lindzen if you don't mind - ML] made it a challenge to follow, but still… intense!

    Honestly, I don’t know the finer details of climate change enough to debate at the level that you do. I know enough to educate a laymen (and my students), but I also have a great amount of respect in the scientific community which allows me to trust what I hear. And what I hear is that although the finer details may still be in question, the main idea (that CO2 is causing climate change) is agreed upon in the scientific community. The fact that people can question the impact of CO2 or even ignore that the climate is changing is mind boggling.


    2 March 2012 at 01:33

    • The context is all over my blog this week (well Tuesday/Wednesday) – keep your eyes on SkepticalScience’s Lindzen Illusions section too. I’m attacking the politics and psychology underlying the denial of reality… I leave taking apart Lindzen’s phoney science to those guys – but I think we make a great combination!

      As ever, thanks for your moral support, it is very much appreciated and reciprocated!

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 07:07

    • The issue as Lindzen said, and others is how much warming, and whether trivial impacts or of significance.

      In the comments at Climate Etc, is the video of the event, so you can hear first hand, for yourself.

      Barry Woods

      2 March 2012 at 08:41

      • The problem I have with the debate of “trivial impacts or of significance” is that it all depends on who’s perspective you are looking from.

        As a Canadian, I can honestly say that although my winters have becoming less snow-filled, my life hasn’t really been affected by the nearly one degree increase in global temperature. But that should not be the yard stick any one of us uses. We should look at the poorest among us, the least able to adjust and use that as a yardstick. That includes the places in the world that are already experiencing more extreme droughts, more extreme floods and where people are already dying due to the change in climate.

        For example, in 2011, we can look at the famine in the horn of Africa where tens of thousands died. Or the record flood in Thailand which caused 45 billion dollars (18% of their GDP) in damages and affected 9,8 million people. Even Texas in the US lost 10 billion dollars due to a record drought last year. I don’t think anyone in those three parts of the world would consider what they lived through “trivial”.

        (I understand that none of the events were “caused” by climate change – they would have happened anyways – but they were made worse by it.)


        2 March 2012 at 09:08

      • Lindzen has now shredded the last vestiges of any credibility or respect he might have once had amongst climate scientists – his career is over. His shameless hypocrisy will be his undoing (even if he finds that missing slide from his talk an re-inserts it into the PDF – we know it wasn’t there; and it is pretty clear why).

        Martin Lack

        2 March 2012 at 10:22

      • @jpgreenword none of the events were “caused” by climate change

        So certain, are you? It is vitally important not to make connections.


        2 March 2012 at 15:49

  2. Climate Etc is not a sceptical blog, I think Prof Judith Curry would be surprised if people thought that. Allthough sceptical people comment there as do others who are not..

    The reference to Joshua, as you were a newcomer, is to a very long standiing person who signed as Joshua. And that this very prolific commentator had vanished recently from Climate Etc and other blogs, Pielke kbt and Lucia’s Blackboard.

    With an interesting hypothesis, bcos Pielke had asked Joshua outright whether he was Joshua Rosenau, Peter Gleick’s colleague at NCSE. I am sure you can see the interest.

    So in ref to you, one vocal defender of the cause vanishes, another appears.. but in jest I think.

    Barry Woods

    2 March 2012 at 08:39

    • Barry, I would not be surprised at all – as Monbiot says it is yet another “echo-chamber for… discredited beliefs” (and I am not talking about Christianity). Furthermore, the unmoderated, uncivilised nature of what passes for “debate” on that site is disgraceful. Yes, I dived in there for purposes of self-publicity only but, for people to argue about who was responsible for me not getting to ask my intended question is tranparently pedantic avoidance of the issues I raised. Furthermore, to claim I had not explained myself is patently nonsense. The entire 1800 word was very carefully written so that any reasonably intelligent person could see that I know what I am talking about; and the only reason Lindzen has not responded is because he cannot do so without incriminating himself.

      Thanks for the explanation re my being labelled “Joshua” – the weird co-incidence that I should have written this post 5 days ago just got even weirder!

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 10:03

      • ref echo chamber are you refering to Climate Etc..

        As not sure why you link to a Monbiot’s article about Monckton, which was written before Climate Etc blog existed.

        Prof Judith Curry saw the slides of the event you attended and wrote a blog article about it. Like you did.

        Much discussion resulted, from a range of views. Curry is very much a mainstream respected professional scientist..

        Barry Woods

        2 March 2012 at 10:51

        • Barry. Look. Lindzen critised us supposed “warmists” for fiddling around with the y-axes of graphs to make things more “alarming”. But quite a few of the graphs he put on the screen were manipulated in exactly this manner in order to give the opposite impression that there is no cause for alarm. Therefore, he was being – and indeed has repeatedly been – either incredibly incompetent or deeply disingenuous. He also criticsied hundreds of scientists for signing a NAS Letter in May 2010 and questioned the relevance of their qualifications and their integrity and yet, and yet, he recently signed a “denialist” letter (this is my blog so I will use that word) along with 14 or 15 non climate scientists that appeared in the WSJ. This too is almost unbelievably hypocritcal.

          So then, shall the Professor sue me now? I’m still waiting for an answer to my email (or a Court Summons). I’m sure you have his telephone number; why don’t you give him a polite reminder? BTW, is there any word yet on the lifting of my blacklisted status on WUWT? (just asking)?

          Martin Lack

          2 March 2012 at 11:20

      • Why would Lindzen give you the time of day.. lots of reasonably intelligent people thought you very long winded and did not make the point at all well. What makes you so special that you deserve any special treatment, or any more respect than just any other random member of the public with a blog. And I don’t meant to be rude, because that description includes me as well.

        Barry Woods

        2 March 2012 at 10:57

        • I have explained why my frustration got the better of me, pleeease don’t make me repeat myself.

          Martin Lack

          2 March 2012 at 11:23

    • Yes let’s have less personal preening and more focus on the actual issues.


      2 March 2012 at 11:02

  3. There is indeed a battle in climate, between state-funded climate science with annual budgets in the tens of billions, and one or two voluntarily funded institutes with budgets in the millions.


    2 March 2012 at 09:33

    • I think you need to read (or at least allow your eyes to fall upon) this:

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 09:45

    • Comedic, at best. The reality is the state funds alarmism and stands to massively benefit from it – ie has a vested interest in the ‘results’. This is just like tobacco companies had with smoking research before – no surprise really, neither the tobacco companies nor the state need to have a ‘conspiracy’ to be pursuing their own interests, that is just a silly strawman.


      2 March 2012 at 10:01

      • Dream on. No, actually, please don’t! There is no “alarmism”; there is only cause for alarm. For example:

        Martin Lack

        2 March 2012 at 10:08

      • That is classic alarmism. Ice melting rates are affected by factors such as winds and currents too. The general background is that temperatures have been stable for over a decade. Could start going up again next year. Or down … So we need to avoid not only the official alarmism, but also complacency.


        2 March 2012 at 10:23

      • So you have no no argument.


        2 March 2012 at 10:44

      • Please don’t feed the trolls.


        2 March 2012 at 11:13

      • Oh! Perlease!
        Have you no idea how the Kochtopus operates ? And that is not including EXXON and all the other ‘Monsters from the Oily Lagoon’. Have a read of Greg Palast’s ‘Vultures Picnic’ to see how these monsters work in the field too.

        Climate research is carried out by thousands of dedicated researches, in many sub disciplines, often risking life and limb on expeditions to hostile environments. Consider doing research on Antarctica, maybe you could read some literature on who does what and where. It may open your eyes. Of course sometimes this research uses expensive equipment such as remote sensor arrays and satellites (another remote sensor type in reality) but these often produces other benefits to science and by extension to humanity. I doubt you moan about the fortunes spent on communication satellites that enable your hand held info fed life style or allow you to navigate despite not ever having learned to read a map (GPS).

        This multidisciplinary research has produced unequivocal evidence for the reality of AGW, evidence not reliant upon models. That Lindzen, and others, try to keep your eyes on ‘models’ whilst hiding all the mountains of evidence is so cheap a fairground trick.

        There are many pieces to the climate knowledge jig-saw most of which we know how and where they fit. The overall picture of what is happening, going to happen and why is clear despite a few missing pieces and some not yet oriented to fit. The problem comes
        when those who should know better come along and start turning pieces over, hiding them or distorting them in a manner that bamboozles those who are not informed enough to follow the ‘sleight of hand’.

        Yes there are aspect not fully understood but too much is made of some of these such as the hullabaloo over GCRs, which the CLOUD project paper had no relevant input on BTW contrary to popular contrarian belief. William James Burroughs in ‘Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach’ explains why Svensmark’s conclusions are flawed.

        Lionel A

        2 March 2012 at 12:04

  4. There is more than enough proof out there that Climate Warming is real and “any attempt” at finding a solution is being derailed by somebody. I prefer to offer links with information about the truth of things, rather than engage in personal discussion which is where debate is killed … sometimes on purpose, the favorite tactic of the denialist, the “Let’s get personal” honey trap.

    Here is a link that offers proof that AGW , Government Interference and Big Oil involvement are all real. It has some really good reading material and a video documentary by the American with interviews with just about everybody, Hansen, EPA officials many other scientists and politicians, all telling the truth as it is. Even sceptics should see the videos :-)


    2 March 2012 at 10:03

  5. So we really can’t be surprised (or even angry) that politically-funded climate ‘science’ has a pro-political bias. That’s just human nature. We just need to see it in perspective, see it for the political advocacy it unavoidably is.


    2 March 2012 at 10:05

    • I strongly disagree with the idea of “state funded” climate “science”.

      I live in Canada and our government has done all it can to de-fund any kind of environmental study or protection. There is literally no new funding for ANY research relating to climate change – I know because that I the direction of my Master’s degree. They even stopped funding an Arctic research station that monitors holes in the ozone layer – a rather important problem.

      The government has done so because it is pro-oil and anti science. You see similar attempts in the USA and attempts to reduce funding of the EPA.


      2 March 2012 at 10:22

      • Interference in politics by lobby groups is what makes the USA so deeply undemocratic. Lindzen’s visit to Westminster is part of an attempt to similarly interfere in UK politics.

        This will only stop when all elections are funded from public money; and lobbysts are banned. Just look at their latest scalp:

        Martin Lack

        2 March 2012 at 10:28

      • Use of taxpayers’ money to impose and propagandise more politics is what undermines real democracy – which is why Europe so much less democratic than the US.


        2 March 2012 at 10:39

      • Punksta,
        I assume that you take into consideration how individuals can now single-handedly fund a politician’s campaign in the US. That is the complete opposite of democracy. So is the entire process of lobbying.


        2 March 2012 at 12:50

      • Without lobbying there would be no democracy. And it’s not only individuals that can lobby, there are organisations ( eg the World Wildlife Fund ) that lobby too.
        If the objective is to stamp out people working to influence politics, perhaps a better place to start would be with silencing newspapers. And the internet, come to think of it..


        2 March 2012 at 13:13

        • But, the way that lobbies work, the more money you have the more influence you have on policy. How does that translate to democracy to you?

          If the CEO of a company can have the ear of my Prime Minister, but I have trouble getting the attention of my local elected official on the same subject, how is that democracy.

          Lobbying, in theory, is a great idea. But not the way that it is currently put in place.


          2 March 2012 at 13:25

      • If your cause was, say nature conservation, a WWF person could be putting your case. Much like the CEO would be putting the case of his shareholders, who – like you – also would not get an audience with the MP.


        2 March 2012 at 13:36

  6. The simple fact is virtually all climate science is state-funded, even if some of it is being reduced. The underlying problem is of course that the science process has been so badly sabotaged to advance the cause in the field of climate science ( hiding data, jimmying peer-review, forging documents etc). Don’t confuse being anti-corrupt-science with being anti-science.


    2 March 2012 at 10:30

    • I’m not (confused).

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 11:29

    • Back in the real world*, almost all pure scientific research has been state-funded for several decades. (Almost no corporate R&D can be classed as pure research, because it is corrupted by its aim of profit generation.)

      *This phrase is a red flag: dammit, I really shouldn’t feed the trolls…


      2 March 2012 at 11:35

    • All politically-funded science with political implications cannot be classed as pure research, because it is corrupted by its aim of politicisation. That is why ‘consensus’ climate science is so riddled with fraud, secrecy and pro-political bias.
      (And anyone interested in the truth should welcome trolls, since they puts ideas to the test)


      2 March 2012 at 11:46

    It strikes me that many of the comments being posted here are baselessly ad hominem (i.e. as opposed to factually-based criticism); and/or not addressing the misrepresentation of data/evidence issue.

    Therefore, will all please note, anyone who continues to post off-topic or unacceptable comments (see Moderation) will – at very least be put into Moderation; whereafter I make no guarantee that their comments will ever appear. Engage with the issues (i.e. that is not just indulging in contradiction – no YouTube Monty Python sketches required) and abide by these principles, or (one way or another you will) go away.

    Martin Lack

    2 March 2012 at 11:52

    • Martin, as the only one here not obviously pre-sold on alarmism, I assume that was directed at me ?


      2 March 2012 at 12:04

    • Ah no, there’s Barry Woods too.


      2 March 2012 at 12:05

    • Martin: I fully expect this to stay in the moderation queue – but I simply couldn’t resist:


      2 March 2012 at 12:13

      • Colin, thanks for at least not posting the Argument Sketch.

        The first 97% of the Life of Brian is indeed one of the funniest films ever made IMHO.

        I am not so full of my own self-importance as to take down a video mocking me (i.e. not if the person who posts it is someone whose opinions I can respect).

        Martin Lack

        2 March 2012 at 13:21

      • Wait, what’s wrong with the last 3%? :(


        2 March 2012 at 16:13

        • Despite the perilous state of my faith in God, I will defend the Christian message against all-comers because I believe no-one has improved on it – Muslims and Mormons included (sorry very non-PC opinion – shall I Moderate myself?) – as I think my discussion with ‘Mados’ on my History page makes clear. Therefore, I find the parody of the crucifixion scene to be in poor taste (although the sentiment of the song is a good one). Just saying.

          Martin Lack

          3 March 2012 at 06:45

  8. Martin.. you seem to be in a world of your own..

    I have now exchanged hundreds more words with you than I have Anthony Watts. I have no control of moderation policy at WUWT, nor any input. Just a guest author logon.

    Try an be civil, and you will be published. You are a guest at his blog.. as I am a guest at yours..

    Why in earth do you think I have Lindzen’s phone number.. never met him before, or contacted him in anyway. Just thought would be interesting. Stop the conspiracy theorizing, it is not healthy.

    Why would he care what you do or say, or I for that matter, just another random individual activist. The I’m right as he doesn’t sue you is laughable.

    You seem to be heading into your own conspiracy territory.

    Barry Woods

    2 March 2012 at 12:02

    • OK, Barry I get you message (twice now).

      However, Lindzen’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, he deserves to be humiliated for it, even if not by me.

      I’m just trying to help people see the situation for what it is.

      We only have one planet – and we are screwing it up because of arrogance, pride, selfishness and greed – oh and a large helping of stubbornness too – quite a toxic mixture.

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 13:13

    • We only have one planet – and we are screwing it up…

      We categorically do not know this in the case of CAGW though. The process that has produced the phoney ‘consensus’ is just too obviously corrupt, politicised and biased for any thinking person to have any faith in it. A truly massive clean-up of climate science is needed, with the Climategate crooks and Gliecks of this world expelled or disciplined first.


      2 March 2012 at 13:30

      • A thinking person pays head to signals from Earth’s many systems, they are telling us loud and clear that we are screwing up the Earth. From ocean and atmospheric pollution, be it GHGs or other, to monstrous development and strip mining including mountain top removal, and on to de-forestation.

        We have reduced the ability of ecosystems, which support our food chain and much else of the economy, to adapt by the many scars we have created and now tar sands are creating a Mordor type landscape in Alberta to add to the many others around the world.

        And we do know the dire consequences of loss of ice at the poles and the loss of ice at both ends of the world is accelerating .

        The Greenland ice surface is dropping in elevation as melt exceeds new deposition. As the waters rise faster then the West Antarctic ice could be lifted off of its rock bed (which is below sea level search out GeoMapApp to check for yourself on that) allowing warmer waters in from under the circumpolar current and then further acceleration of ice loss in Antarctica. If that happens it is game over for civilization as we know it.

        Go here for more on why the cryosphere is a canary and our executioner .

        Don’t pay attention to Lindzen’s slides on Ice extent, he is a very dangerous man. You should also check out the difference between sea ice extent and sea ice area and also how the real one to watch is volume (heat capacity and latent heat and all that),

        Lionel A

        2 March 2012 at 17:14

  9. Just a thought. You might like on the left politically, but an equally passionate climate campaigner.. Google her run-ins with Roger Harrabin. And James Delingpole..

    Another blog that is intetesting is Keith Kloor’s Collide a Scape.

    He is most certainately NOT a fan of WUWT..
    But interesting blog nevertheless less.

    The problem with having your own blog, is can be very easy to get into an echo chamber of own making.. been there personally, getting out and about is much more intetesting.

    General advice is read a blog and comments for a while to get a feel for it..

    Before diving in.

    Barry Woods

    2 March 2012 at 12:10

    • Thanks for the recommendation – I have heard of her but could not have put a name to a face. Anyone who argues with Delingpole must be worth talking to…

      Martin Lack

      2 March 2012 at 13:15

      • well in that case … ;-)

        he (JD) did tell me to F-off (3x) lastweek – we made up afterwards though. and I had a big disagreement with Lord Monckton, in bar after event (1st time I’d met him)

        As Tamsin said a ‘range of opinions’

        Barry Woods

        2 March 2012 at 14:37

  10. The problem with having your own blog, is it can be very easy to get into an echo chamber of your own making..

    Like I said, a blogger’s best best friends are his trolls.


    2 March 2012 at 12:22

  11. Punksta,
    How would privately funded research be any better than the situation you describe regarding publicly funded research? Private industries have the single purpose of creating profit for their shareholders. If, for example, Exxon Mobile were to fund a climate change study, it would be in it’s best interest for that study to conclude that climate change is not happening. That would tell people that they can continue to buy it’s oil and burn it.

    And, regarding your statement “All politically-funded science with political implications cannot be classed as pure research”. What scientific research does not have potential political implications. An ocean biologist’s research can impact fisheries’ policy. Someone studying ecosystems could impact the forestry industry or land us policy. Someone doing research into metal alloys could affect mining, exports, even building regulations.

    And even if a researcher’s work is biased by political influence, it still has to go through the peer-review process which was put in place to make sure that the science in question remains honest. It may not be the perfect system, but it is the best system that generations of scientists have come up with. And it has served us well so far.


    2 March 2012 at 13:12

    • And even if a researcher’s work is biased by political influence, it still has to go through the peer-review process…

      A good idea, but reduced to mere window-dressing if the the peer-review process is itself politically funded.


      2 March 2012 at 13:19

      • A good idea, but reduced to mere window-dressing if the the peer-review process is itself politically funded.

        That statement demonstrates how little you know other than that which you are told by the likes of that ‘interpreter of interpretations’.

        The IPCC conclusions are based upon peer reviewed science. But then it seems that you would rather spout off in ignorance rather than discover what the IPCC is and how it works.

        Lionel A

        2 March 2012 at 19:56

      • Lionel A,

        A few points:

        “This multidisciplinary research has produced unequivocal evidence for the reality of AGW, evidence not reliant upon models”

        This is delusionary in the extreme. CAGW remains today but a highly speculaltive theory, the bulwark of which is models; which have no answer for the current temperature plateau, but which nevertheless guide political policy. . Time will tell though…

        Precis : the IPCC is an objective, peer-reviewing overview.

        Except for being an utterly corrupt, inept, politically funded, politically motivated part of an organisation dedicated to promoting world governance.


        * Governments/politics stands to gain massively from an acceptance of CAGW.
        * They also so happen to be funding the ‘science’ promoting CAGW, spending perhaps 10,000 times as much (of OUR) money on it as everyone else put together.
        See the connection ? It’s just like when tobacco companies funded the ‘science’ that said smoking is safe. Vested interest screams out in both cases.
        Add to this the rampant, endemic, unrepentant fraud in government climate science exposed in Climategate. And blatant fraudsters like Gleick rising to being in charge of ethics initiatives in science. You’d be hard put to make stuff like this up.


        3 March 2012 at 07:37

  12. Martin,
    At no point have I been responding to comments you may have made to Lindzen. Your reply to me is thus quite unresponsive, and hence rather baffling. (What am I “optimisitc” about ??)

    My points thus stand :
    - CAGW is a speculation based on a minimal grasp of the complexity (little more than Tyndall’s law), heavily reliant on models that are steadily off-beam. The next decade made bring a change though, who knows?
    - the IPCC a demonstrably corrupt political lobby designed purely to ‘big up’ CAGW to advance its own cause.

    And in plain and flat contradiction to your “truth of the matter”, the facts remain that the state
    - funds the CAGW idea, massively outspending everyone else in climate science
    - has a huge vested interest in fostering belief in CAGW, since this means it can tax us more, and boost itself with more regulations and regulators. No silly talk of a “conspiracy” strawman needed, just the state acting in its self-interest as you would expect – but its Leviathan proportions and uniquely privileged position in society as the monopoly wielder of legal violence/force.

    And if there is or was under-regulation, it would make everyone richer, not just a few people, because it would make the good and markets so effected more competitive.

    Overall, what I am saying to you is the rational approach is neither the blinkered, bought and crooked attitude of government climate scientists and their truebeliever alarmist followers in the media, or the equivalent denialism (if such actually exists) , but concern moderated by scepticism until such time as something more concrete is honestly known.


    3 March 2012 at 09:13

    • Given the context of the quotation, it should be clear that “your” was addressed to Lindzen. However, I am bound to say that, whether you realise it or not, it applies to you as well because you are in effect gambling on Lindzen being right.

      I responded to your assertions of your conspiracy theory beliefs with statements of (1) very well understood science and (2) easily verifiable historical fact. For us to continue to each claim the other is wrong would, I think, be a waste of time.

      Martin Lack

      3 March 2012 at 09:41

    • Punksta.

      Please find out how the world really works your grasp on reality is tenuous at best, here is just one example of who is trying to pervert democracy:

      Heartland Institute: A Manifestation of the Kochtopus Empire /a>

      Now you should explore this:

      just one web of many

      and consider that much of the research that happens to support the wholly rational view that climate change is happening and is largely down to us is done for reasons other than investigating climate change.

      Of course expensive kit is deployed but this kit is to ensure the survival of researchers in hostile and uncomfortable environments.Take for example the many naturalists that embark on arduous expeditions into the steaming jungles on mountains in Papua New Guinea for example that collects data on the ecology there. The BBC’s Lost Land of the Volcano provided an insight into such.

      Naturalists such as E O Wilson and Paul Ehrlich spent life-times in search of ecological data, data that provides assistance with medicines and food sources as well as climate.

      As I have mentioned elsewhere here (you go look), expensive tools such as satellites & co. offer other benefits to society.

      You are using Gish Gallops of unsupported statements which seasoned campaigners such as myself recognise as coming straight from propaganda pundits who use you as unwitting tools to continue the delay on action, delay which profits the fossil fuel and allied industrialists at the expense of nearly every body else.

      So in future please provide evidence to back up your assertions else I will treat to as either a dupe of those FFIs or one of their paid propagandists and ignore you as a troll who can only spout tedious bunkum.

      Lionel A

      3 March 2012 at 17:20

  13. You may be gambling on Lindzen, I am not. And it is also only you who conjure up talk of “conspiracy” to (mis)describe the state openly acting in its own self-interest. And it is well known that the science is anything but well-known or “settled”, hence the existence of this blog. Only those with hidden agenda deny this.


    3 March 2012 at 09:51

  14. And if Lindzen is right and we carry on with a pointless war on CO2 we are all stuffed. Which is why you should want him to speak up.

    Belief in CAGW will allow the state boost its revenues and it expand its reach, regardless of all other factors ie, big upside and no downside, regardless of whether or not CAGW turns out to be true. A totalitarian dream come true, a liberal’s nightmare.

    And since CAGW is still such a great unknown, Nordhaus is just being a nincompoop.


    3 March 2012 at 10:17

    • “Nordhaus is just being a nincompoop.”
      Yeah, yeah… So was Muller, and so will be everyone who has the intellectual honesty to admit they were wrong…

      You’ve been telling yourself all this “guff” for so long, I think you really do believe it, don’t you? Give my condolences to your children.

      Martin Lack

      3 March 2012 at 10:29

    • Not for changing his mind (assuming he did), but for being silly and just swallowing CAGW whole. Perhaps he also recommends another tax and layer of government to handle the possibility of a big meteor strike. Or the earth’s core suddenly exploding …

      Your “guff” comment is indicative of your lack of any real argument I’m afraid.


      3 March 2012 at 10:50

      • Punksta, you are boring me. For anyone to carry on interacting with you here would clearly be a waste of both their time and yours. Goodbye.

        Martin Lack

        3 March 2012 at 11:00

  15. [...] a thread on Lack of Environment arose, of a type with which anyone who has been following the so-called ‘climate change [...]

  16. Today’s “Climate Change Deniers” can be likened to Galileo, those who do not accept the purported beliefs of “The Establishments” and are deemed heretics. First, CO2 levels have less impact on the climate than water vapor, which performs a dual function of heating and cooling. Many of the alarmists of today are the same alarmists who warned of the next ice age during a cooling period from 1940-1970. Since there are both global cooling and global warming occurring, Climate Change has become the new keyword. Furthermore, the atmospheric CO2 has been much higher than current levels without the industrialized world. Earh’s climate history demonstrates a much greater resilience to changes than the alarmists give it. The computer models that have been used to generate much hype cannot even recreate historical conditions given the historical data, so how can we expect them to accurately predict the future. The IPCC claims that doubling the CO2 from Pre-Industrial Age levels of .028% will have catastrophic consequences, yet water concentrations range from 0-4 percent and accounts for 90-95 percent of Earh’s natural greenhouse effect. H2O exhibits a normal range of variation up to 100 times greater than CO2, yet no runaway global warming. In addition, Humidity on a daily basis produces changes in temperature more than the entire increase in CO2 over 150 years. I am not saying that humans don’t have an effect on the environment, we do, but not to the extent that the IPCC and other Climate Change Advocates would have the general population believe. How much CO2 is given off during a volcanic eruption? How much CO2 is produced by wildfires? And how much CO2 is absorbed and processed in areas outside the Equatorial Rain Forests? And in the 90′s when 500 weather stations were closed in the former Soviet Union (cold area), were 500 closed in warm areas (Hint:The answer is NO)? BTW-Methane has greater impacts than CO2, and methane is natural.

    Michael Faure

    3 March 2012 at 18:38

    • Hi Michael. Thanks for dropping-in. Presumably you have not read my 1800-word letter to Prof. Lindzen (that kicked-off this saga) either? Or may be you gave up before you reached the penultimate paragraph…
      “What is your answer to Utah-based Professor of Geological Sciences, Barry Bickmore, who recently suggested that today’s so-called climate ‘sceptics’ are not like Galileo because, rather than fighting against one, they are fighting for an obscurantist and anti-intellectual Establishment, in an attempt to perpetuate the burning of fossil fuels for as long as possible?”

      Nor did you apparently read (just 4 paragraphs earlier)…
      “Although not the strongest greenhouse gas (GHG), CO2 is the most abundant, long-lived, GHG there is (i.e. water vapour is much more abundant but comes and goes; whereas methane is 23 times more powerful as a GHG but is much less abundant). Furthermore, CO2 is the only thing capable of explaining the warming we have seen over the last 150 years, because CO2 is the only thing that has changed significantly (i.e. increased by 40%) in that time. Surely this is what is known in science as a “fair test”? Nothing else has changed significantly (not the Sun, not cosmic rays, not water vapour, not volcanic eruptions).”

      If you can’t be bothered to read what I’ve got to say before strolling in here and spouting all the same tired old falsehoods, 95% of which I have addressed in my letter to Lindzen, why should I bother to debunk them for you all over again? I certainly can’t be bothered to rummage around for the 5% I haven’t already addressed.

      On behalf of everyone in The Curry House, please accept my apologies if this is too combative/bullying/arrogant/pompous/other* for you.

      * Please circle all those you feel to be applicable.

      Martin Lack

      3 March 2012 at 19:31

    • Please accept my apologies, Michael: I assumed (wrongly?) that you had come here via Dr Judith Curry’s blog.

      Martin Lack

      4 March 2012 at 10:19

  17. Martin – have you seen this graphic? It helps put the “climate scientists conspiracy against those poor defenseless fossil fuel companies” in perspective:


    5 March 2012 at 02:53

  18. [...] Alternatively (courtesy of 350 or bust via a devious route): [...]

  19. Just a typo: you refer to “scientificly-illiterate media”; I think you mean “scientifically”. The zombie swarm will gladly pick on such slips, to distract attention from the message: they learn that trick in Denialism* 101. (Not that most scientists need to be pedantic with their English usage, but one needs to be soooo accurate when one sticks one’s head above the parapet when discussing AGW [or ACD as I think you put it].)

    *Wikipedia English – The Free Encyclopedia
    Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: “[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event”. In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.


    8 March 2012 at 01:24

    • Thanks for spotting the typo. I know what you mean about the zombie swarm – they have been deploying this tactic against me ad nauseam on Judith Curry’s blog. I would encourage you to adopt use of ACD it is a far more accurate summation of the problem we face.

      Martin Lack

      8 March 2012 at 09:01

Please join the discussion

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers

%d bloggers like this: