Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm

Another day, another turpitude: that's modern 'climate science and the media' for you:

As the author, Jaime Jessop notes at the end of her article describing this latest piece of nonsense, there is a consolation in the speed at which the junk is being exposed and refuted these days. With the added touch that in this case at least, some of the exposure came in a newspaper notorious for its complete devotion to the CO2 Alarm Faith:

For now, we sceptics can be content that media climate change/sea level rise alarmist hype has been so quickly and prominently rebuffed in one of the newspapers which was instrumental in promoting it in the first place! Sometimes, if you over-egg the message, you end up with a lot of that egg on your face.

May 11, 2016 at 10:09 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Notorious scientist-impersonator Bill Nye has been at it again:

He tweets doom to take advantage of recent tornadoes causing damage in Kentucky. Paul Homewood takes a look at the data on tornadoes in the USA, and notes 'Meanwhile, back in the real world, tornadoes are so far year this year below average.' and 'And in the longer term, there has been a clearly declining trend in stronger tornadoes.'. He concludes his report with this:

Nye is no more than a huckster, pure and simple. It is sad that there are so many gullible people about who actually believe him.

May 13, 2016 at 12:27 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

There are so many instances of the poverty that I can scarce keep up with them here, but this James Delingpole captures one in his response to an excellent piece of work on No Tricks Zone:

'Richard shows that during the 1960s and 1970s, there was an 86 percent scientific consensus that the planet was on a cooling path. But this was airbrushed out of history so successfully that even now if you do a Google search on “70s global cooling scare” the top results claim it never really happened.

The top result is this one from Wikipedia on Global Cooling, which says:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

This is flat-out untrue – in fact the vast majority of scientific papers (220 out of 264) supported the cooling thesis – and makes a mockery of Jimmy Wales’s oft-expressed desire to reduce Wikipedia’s outrageous left-wing bias.'

The entire article is well worth reading:

And of course, the work by Kenneth Richard deserves to be studied and stored as a resource for the future.

Sep 14, 2016 at 5:56 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Mediocre, sometimes astonishingly poor, scientific papers in the hard sciences are part of the CO2 Disgrace we are living through, but there is perhaps even more junk to be found in the social sciences, not least psychology. A recent paper there has been well-summarised as follows on CliScep:

This article is a disgrace to an International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. The editors and reviewers who passed it should sack themselves. Since academic independence is one of our most precious guarantees of freedom of thought, Lewandowsky Cook and Lloyd should be allowed to remain at their posts at their respective prestigious universities, to be ridiculed and jeered at until their retirement as the pathetic establishment-arse-licking charlatans that they are.

See the post on CliScep here:

Sep 28, 2016 at 3:09 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Some recent illustrations of the moral and intellectual poverty of the CO2 scaremongering movement:

“The editor of ThinkProgress, the Soros-funded attack dog site, has been caught boasting to a billionaire liberal donor about how a smear campaign by one of his minions helped damage the career of a reputable climate scientist. “

“One of the world's leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it to win millions from the taxpayer. “
See Rose's report here:

“The press reaction to the annual GWPF lecture delivered by Matt Ridley at the Royal Society illustrates perfectly the insanity of the current state of discussion of climate change and all things environmental. “

(4) The resources this movement has wasted, and the flimsy justification for that: :
Josh cartoon-notes:

(5) And the latest piece of junk science from the alarmers to have been demolished is reported on here:
"Recent claims by climate alarmists that global warming was threatening the world coffee supply and the jobs of “125 million people” have turned out to be completely unfounded, according to a new study released Monday by a group of researchers from the University of Exeter."

How much longer will this nonsense remain so influential as it has been?

Oct 24, 2016 at 5:29 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

How much longer will this nonsense remain so influential as it has been?

Good question. I think Breitbart has peaked. Once you employ Delingpole ....well there's no way back.

Oct 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

John Shade, it will only stop when taxpayers are no longer forced to pay for it. No one else will.

Oct 24, 2016 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

What is it about CO2 Alarmism that attracts vicious and ruthless people? I learned today that Castro was one of them:

Nov 29, 2016 at 12:42 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John shade

What is it about CO2 Alarmism that attracts vicious and ruthless people?

Vicious and ruthless dictators are, above all, realists.

They do not indulge in fantasies, including climate denial fantasies.

Nov 29, 2016 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Vicious and ruthless dictators are, above all, realists.
That must one of the most stupid statements I have seen on this site – history shows that vicious and ruthless dictators are, as often as not, in a world completely of their own. Their insistence that others join them in their fantasy-land tends to result in the brutality more associated with vicious and ruthless dictators; they do seem to be utterly unable to see the reality of horror that they have created, apparently seeing it as some sort of Nirvana for the people.

Nov 29, 2016 at 2:36 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, I think that explains how Malthusians evolved into Climate Science experts, and have never had any problem with increasing the number of people who die every year from lack of drinkable water, food, medical aid for treatable disease.

Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin were mere beginners compared to Climate Scientists.

The United Nations needs to throw out the IPCC, and use the vacated office space for Climate Science's Crimes Against Humanity. With the abuse Trump is getting, he might even launch his own investigation. Who knows where the FBI might make arrests after all the exciting air travel that FIFA generated for them. Climate Scientists like to congregate in far more exotic places than sleazy football scammers.

Nov 29, 2016 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Good point, GC. Stalin and Pol Pot were responsible for about 20 million deaths each, and the more up-to-date Mugabe is working hard to match them; however, how many hundreds of millions of deaths could Rachel Carson be (and is still being) responsible for? And there is the irony that she is still being heralded as a saviour of this planet (though, to be fair, there are still many who think Stalin and Castro are to be revered).

Nov 29, 2016 at 9:58 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The indefatigable Donna Laframboise has a point to make in the current fuss, at least in the States, about 'fake news':

Journalists have told us we should believe in a climate crisis because thousands of Nobel-winning scientists agree. But those scientists haven’t actually done Nobel-quality scientific work. They’re merely associated with a UN body that was awarded a Peace Prize. That these people have nevertheless allowed themselves to be described as Nobel laureates tells us two things. First, many scientists are OK with exaggeration. Second, they don’t think the public that pays their salary is entitled to the real goods.

More here:

Once again, we see that those dressed in the garb of planet-saviours, or their minions in the mass media, feel no need to pause to consider the integrity of their assertions. For them, it is the immediate effect on the politicals and the public and the sources of their incomes that counts.

Dec 17, 2016 at 12:14 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

By EM and PC standards, Hitler was one of the greatest realists in modern history. And dismissing Breitbart and O'Keefe, with that pesky videotapes evidence, is rather pathetic. Almost like our favorite trolls have as big am aversion to the truth as they are attracted to monstrous dictators and genocide.

Dec 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, it is amazing how much the Third Reich, Stalin and Global Warmists have in common. Malthus would have been proud of them all, killing millions, to preserve luxury lifestyles for those who kept their ruthless faith in selfishness.

Dec 17, 2016 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Along there at the unhinged end of the spectrum of CO2 alarmists is a chap called Bill McKibben. He hires people to get arrested to add spice, and presumably publicity, to his efforts at civil disobedience. Here in his own words:

“Our advance team had been on the ground in Washington for three weeks. It turns out that in a market society there are people equipped to fill every need, including organizing civil disobedience. The crew we’d found, and who would soon become close colleagues, was headed by Matt Leonard.”

“Matt kept saying that we’d be fine with five or ten arrestees a day over our two-week protest; even as the number of people signing up kept mounting, he cautioned that many would melt away. The D.C. police must have felt the same way, because it was next to impossible to get their attention— our team was bounced from one sergeant to another, and none seemed to take the whole thing very seriously. I began to worry they’d just let us sit there, that we wouldn’t get arrested at all.”

More jaw-dropping stuff on him, and more links here (my source for the above quote):

Dec 26, 2016 at 11:09 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John, thanks for the link. McKibben is to climate extremist kooks what the American preacher Al Sharpton is to race relations: cynical, deceptive, power hungry, connected and somehow never really held to account.

Dec 26, 2016 at 12:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

"Am I way out of line? How do others see the 'climate movement'? Is there anything or anyone to admire in it?"

No. Dystopian, misanthropic, luddites. No.

Dec 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Thank you for your comments, hunter and geronimo. Truthspeakers.

Meanwhile here is more stuff on those of a different stamp.

Andy May has an informative post up at WUWT on global cooling and fake news. It contains several links to turpitude on the part of CO2 Alarmists.

At the creepy end of the spectrum, there is to be found a chap called William Connolley, and Andy's post is primarily about his doings. The post begins:

There is an excellent new post up at on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s and the efforts to erase it from the record by the climate alarmists at For some the scandal at Wikipedia over William Connolley deliberately posting false articles and altering factual ones on climate is old news. This is for those who missed the story. William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. “Fake news” is an old story, used extensively by radical climate alarmists and environmentalists. Indeed, Greenpeace seems to be based on the concept of fake news.

The last two links in that extract illuminate an organisation called Greenpeace which is at the criminal or evil ends of the CO2 Alarmist Spectrum (it is a multidimensional one).

The entire post is well worth a read, as are the many pieces at the links.

Dec 26, 2016 at 3:24 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Turpitude punished.

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.

I guess he was in the right agency for getting away with being an unexamined, unaccountable climate activist pre-occupied with damaging 'capitalism'. His boss is now under investigation. Her incompetence would also beggar belief if you hold a high opinion of climate activists. But who could?

Two congressional committees are now pressing the EPA, including administrator McCarthy, for answers on the handling of Beale’s case. Two new inspector general’s reports fault the agency for a lack of internal controls and policies that allegedly facilitated Beale’s deceptions.

McCarthy didn't care much for the American economy either:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted her agency’s signature regulation aimed at tackling global warming was meant to show “leadership” rather than actually curb projected warming. – McCarthy admitted as much after being questioned by West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley, who pressed the EPA chief on why the Obama administration was moving forward with economically-damaging regulations that do nothing for the environment.

The new president sure has a big swamp to drain in the EPA alone.

Jan 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John - yes. I think Gina wotsername has not got a clue about what is coming down the turnpike at her. There is an odour of denial in her statements about the impossibility of dismantling what they have put in place.

I'm not sure it will be that difficult to rein in the EPA. Are there any republican congressmen who are rooting for the EPA? I don't know, but I'd doubt it. Cutting back the EPA will be orders of magnitude easier that stopping an out of control military pork barrel like the F-35 would be.

I think the Trump team has the motivation to deal with the EPA very rapidly and very firmly. They see it as a major factor in the decline of US industry. And Trump seems to have appointed the right guy for the job.

Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma and a sceptic of climate science, has been chosen by Donald Trump as the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Pruitt, a Republican, has been picked at a time when he is part of legal action waged by 28 states against the EPA to halt the Clean Power Plan, an effort by Barack Obama’s administration to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. His nomination is a clear signal of Republicans’ desire to dismantle Obama’s climate legacy.

Jan 5, 2017 at 4:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, I sure hope you are right. Bringing the EPA back from its wild irresponsibility phase, and removing many of its initiatives, would be a great step forward.

On the general theme this thread, there is a short, and very readable paper mentioned on today's GreenieWatch which I would like to commend to all who come by this way. Here is an extract:

Due to this incessant “consensus” groupthink, apparently fueled by well-funded media, driven by vested interest billionaires, society will not be able to address the need to prepare for possible cooling or to respond with climate adaptations to better manage other natural or human-caused, dramatic climate changes. The reality of cyclical climate change from warming to cooling and back again is obvious based on human historical and empirical scientific evidence, but the public is not psychologically prepared for the eventuality of a cooling cycle when indoctrinated to think all 97% of ‘all’ scientists agree “…it is warming…and your fault.”

The paper can be downloaded for free here:

The author, Michelle Stirling, digs into the sorry ethics of the 97% brigade, in particular those of Cook et al. (2016). She concludes they are, in my words, pretty dire. Gotta agree with that.

Jan 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John Shade & Martin A

De-powering the EPA is Trump's first goal to re-power the US economy. Defunding Climate Science will be quicker, but with a US Car Manufacturer already cancelling plans for a new factory in Mexico, in favour of investment within the US, business confidence is up.

This is not good for Mexico, or job prospects within Mexico, but the US elected Trump, to benefit US Citizens.

This thread is titled "The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm". Financial poverty is destroying confidence and faith in Climate Alarmists, so now they can see what it feels like.

Jan 8, 2017 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc - If the Trump government sorts out the EPA and also directs NASA to stop its "politicized science" and refocus on space exploration, that will be a giant step for mankind.

What other agencies relevant to the Great Delusion are under the authority of the President? I imagine there are bodies responsible for funding of university research via government (ie US taxpayer) money but I'm just guessing there.

Jan 8, 2017 at 6:39 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Of all the degrading crap that has come from the voices of CO2 alarmists, this piece in the New York Times is down there, deep in the gutter. This is utterly revolting:

Hat-tip Climate Depot, where some basic data is linked-to to refute a core presumption of that sickening piece of writing and video-making:

I am not superstitious, but if I were, my goodness would I call down a curse on Nicholas Kristof. May he rot in hell.

Jan 9, 2017 at 6:07 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade