I thought the first sign of the end of the global warming scam would be a swathe of news media becoming outright sceptic. Somehow I just assumed that like I did, the news media would just look at the evidence and like a juror deciding guilt or innocence, reappraise the evidence and decide that the evidence just doesn’t stack up for the alarmists.
Recently I’ve started seeing an odd start of story. I would call it the “we obviously support the ‘consensus’ … but what if there is something in the sceptic position?”
To me this is just an incredible position. If you look at the science, it’s difficult to sit on the fence. Or at least that is how I found it when I changed position, but then I am in a privileged position because I can understand the scientific papers and so I was confident enough to form my own opinion based on the raw scientific facts. But what if you are a “second hand scientist”. What if you rely on others to interpret the science and so really all you can know is the strength of the view of those who can interpret the science. So what do you do, when a substantial number of those you have been taking your cue from change their view leaving you with a pile of second hand “science”articles about: “anyone who doubts the alarmist position is a holocaust denier” and a load of readers who you’ve been telling would be stupid to adopt the prevailing view in academia?
You have to change, but how? So, it seems the first step is to toy with scepticism. To retain an overt warmist stance, but to talk about scepticism as a way of gauging the reaction if (i.e. when) they change their editorial position, in other words as a way of gently introducing a change of view. For an example we have this article in something called Environment 360 from Yale university:
Probing the Role of the Sun In an Era of Global Warming
… But just because a scientific story hangs together doesn’t mean you aren’t missing something. The late physicist Richard Feynman once said: “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” A convincing line of reasoning, whether it’s part of a scientific theory or an episode of “Law & Order,” could fool you into overlooking the real villain.
So scientists have looked hard at how the Sun might be playing a part, and how big a part, in the current episode of climate change.
or this from what seems to be one of the many “green companies” carrying a overtly sceptic article (or maybe it’s a green ad in the banner making it look that way … but I can’t get over the apparently highly sceptic article on what appears to be a “cleantech” website:
Cleantech Ltd: “University of Alabama Research Provides Novel Insights About Global Warming”
The data collected by Terra Satellite of NASA from 2000 to 2011 shows that the earth’s atmosphere releases more heat into space than predicted by the computers that are programmed for the purpose, reports a new research recorded in Remote Sensing, a science journal.
Now whilst I haven’t checked this does sound to me like one of the old staunch: “warmists and you’re all deniers if you don’t accept what I say” changing their spots. Yes, they are still regurgitating the warmist mantra, but now they are toying with the idea of scepticism.
It’s almost a “hey I’m still a warmist … but would any of you guys mind if I talk more about scepticism”.
There are whole management courses on “introducing change”, and no doubt there are old hacks in the media that know just how quickly to introduce their readers to the notion that what they have been saying might just be a load of carp. But to be fair to the newsmedia, it’s really their readers who force them to take a position because readers don’t like the “on the one hand this on the other hand that”. People prefer strong opinions – even – even if they disagree with that opinion because that gives them an easy choice. Readers like black and white views, so the media always has an invidious choice and has to pick sides. So we all know newspapers that once swore anyone who voted tory/labour was an idiot deciding to change sides.
So, clearly it seems the first step in this 180degree U turn is to “dip your toe in the water”. Find some innocuous way to talk about the sceptic position … obviously still talking the warmist jargon so as not to burn their bridges if too many of the readers put their hands up in disgust, but at least by discussing the view that they have been so dismissive of, they can gauge the level of disgust, pretend that they are both alarmist and sceptic sympathisers etc. etc.
The final step?
Which leaves me wondering what the next step is for a media changing sides. I can’t for the life of me ever remember a newsmedia apologising, so I don’t expect any: “sorry we was wrong on global warming” articles. So how do they do it? (SERIOUS QUESTION!!!)
My guess, is that they just “go quiet” for a while, stick to the facts and avoid stating their opinions, until they have laid a groundwork of sufficient factual articles which makes the editorial change clear enough without having to overtly state it. And once the readership have accepted that the paper has changed its spots, they can come out and overtly state their new biased view … except this time they are now the most ardent sceptics instead of the most ardent warmists. I suppose that’s how it works … my guess is that the next few months will show if its true.
Addendum
When I first read this I mistakenly took this as a warmist who had mysteriously been able to report counter views. On reflection, I wonder if the overtly warmist language is in the way of “the lady does protest too much”: they are trying to be strongly warmist whilst at the same time testing the water to see what would happen if they started being more sceptic. It would be interesting to monitor this journalists work to see whether this journalist changes their spots in the near future.
This week in global-warming denial
Why is a questionable study from a controversial researcher overshadowing actual science?
it’s been a controversial study from a controversial scientist that has generated the most buzz. Unsurprisingly, a slew of prominent right-leaning websites are pointing to it as proof that global warming is a hoax. The report, by University of Alabama scientist Roy Spencer and published in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing, argues that heat is actually escaping from Earth much more quickly than current climate models predicted.
RE:”. . .stick to the facts and avoid stating their opinions . . .”
There was a time that would have been the job description. Unfortunately opinion has all too often been presented as fact, IE: consensus. Just as unfortunate (iMHO) the sizzle still sells more than the steak so sensationalism (IE: extremism) one way or the other is the headline. And who has time (or budget) for actual research on any particular story? As the AGW storyline fades I’m sure the MSM will find the most profitable angle to present . . because it’s always been about the money, hasn’t it?
So scientists have looked hard at how the Sun might be playing a part, and how big a part, in the current episode of climate change.
Yes, of course they have. Climate scientists have looked long and hard at any and all possible forcings of global temperature and incorporated them into the models. Only conspiracy theorists believe otherwise.
Of course, if anyone reports on any influences on climate other than CO2, or reports on the huge efforts that are constantly being made to improve the models and make sure the science is right and as accurate as possible then it is a sign that society as a whole is about to throw all of current climate science in the bin.
I believe this is wishful thinking on your part. My interpretation is that the scientific community is now onto the deniers’ game and that the job of the contrarian movement may be harder, not easier, from now on.
“Climate scientists have looked long and hard at any and all possible forcings of global temperature and incorporated them into the models. Only conspiracy theorists believe otherwise”
… and you know that for a fact, and presumably also know that they’ve got the relative weight and precise interaction of all these forcings correct, do you? You should read more. The modellers and those who interpret their results are the first to admit (though not always publicly) that there are problems. Many of the factors which are included are based on no more than intelligent guesses.
Clouds? – not sure, best guess used. Aerosols? – not sure, best guess used. Radiation from the surface? – best guess based on other models, thought to be within 5% of the true value. Ocean cycles? – best guess based on other models, accuracy unknown. Radiation to space? – best estimate from satellite data, thought to be within 3% of the true value. I could go on.
After reading ‘Scared to Death’ by Booker-North I realised that scares usually just get forgotten about, they stop being news and then just fall below the radar. I had actually lived through the period during which each scare had been a major issue and was mildly surprised to realise that I had completely forgotten about it. Salmonella in eggs, mad cow disease, the millenium bug and practically all the parents in the North East are abusing their children. All of these issues just quietly faded into obscurity. I think that the climate issue is different in that it has gone on for much longer and many people have rather a lot invested in it. Maybe I am wrong to be sceptical and maybe there are terrible times ahead I won’t be able to stay sceptical for ever, events will overtake me and prove me wrong. Likewise, if the alarmists are wrong, they wont be able to go on forever predicting an Armageddon that stubbornly refuses to materialise.
Roy Spencer is an extremely reputable scientist and, what is more, one who is prepared to enter into genuine scientific discourse. His paper is being rubbished by the CRU gang but with little sensible evidence. Have a look at his website.
The other interesting experiment that is lurking in the wings is the cloud experiment at CERN. There has been much furore since the scientist in charge has issued a diktat that the results must be reported without any explanation. We are all waiting to see if the results support, as we suspect they will, Svensmark.
RE: “Likewise, if the alarmists are wrong, they wont be able to go on forever predicting an Armageddon that stubbornly refuses to materialise.”
Unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. There is always another ‘reason’ or ‘explanation’ for why dire predictions have not come to pass. Whether it’s a giant heat sink yet to be discovered in the deep ocean that is about to rise up and bake us or it’s Chinese coal plants that have canceled out the global warming that our coal fired power plants here in Ontario, Canada have been causing. With each new AGW theory proponent put forward it becomes more and more of that Monty Python “Theory” skit.
-barn
Stoneyground . . .
The issues you mention – salmonella in eggs, mad cow disease, the millenium bug – were all recognised as real and dealt with effectively. That is why the worst didn’t happen.
RE: “That is why the worst didn’t happen.”
So then, Scots Renewables, where’s the missing heat? Do you believe there’s a huge heat sink (about half of the expected heat from AGW) yet undetected in the deep ocean? And the process for which yet to be explained. Or has the global warming caused (mostly?) by the Wests’ coal fired power plants been negated by Chinese coal fired power plants?
So I guess if AGW is recognized as real and global temps have flat lined, then we’ve dealt with it effectively? I suppose to be really effective we’ll all have to go back to coal fired power plants.
Who would’ve guessed cheap energy would be the savior of the planet? Certainly nobody @Greenpeace.
Nyuck, nyuck . . . I know, it’s worse than we thot . . .
-barn
@Scots Renewables
There was no problem with salmonella in eggs. The scare was caused by a cluster of cases that the government extrapolated into a major epidemic. Some computer operators spent thousands on upgrades to avert the Millenium Bug others did nothing. the ones who did nothing had no problems. At the height of the BSC scare it was suggested that anyone who had eaten beef since the eighties could be affected and cases could run into millions. As it turned out, cases remained in single figures.
The recurring theme in the book ‘Scared to death’ is that whether there is a real threat or not, the government invariably waste a huge amount of money on measures that usually turn out to be totally ineffective or in some cases make matters worse. The measures generally lead to a whole load of unintended consequences including ruined businesses additional unneccessary expense and in some cases suicides.
In view of all this I find your faith in the ability of governments to correctly identify problems and to act quickly and effectively to sort them out quite comical.
Dizzy wouldn’t you agree that the real problem of climate science isn’t the few who limit their comments to what the evidence shows, but the many who feel free to comment on everything irrespective of the evidence and irrespective of their own competence and expertise.
CERN are merely setting a good example, and whilst it will be odd not to have some politically motivated propaganda leaflet explaining why it’s not “yet more proof that mankind’s sinful ways are/are not destroying the globe”, wouldn’t you agree that if every climate “scientist” did as CERN and stopped wasting their time on Wikipedia and (un)RealClimate then the world might actually believe what they said (like we used to believe “scientists” or Scientists as I seem to remember we called them)
SR. That is the worst trollop you’ve written here. Salmonella in eggs was limited to a few cases and none of the government reaction stopped it happening. Under BiasedBroadcastingCompanies new guidelines, they wouldn’t even be able to report on Mad cow disease (which they did on the Today program many years before the storm broke) — because it was not official “expert” opinion. Eventually after years of denial (you cannot have forgotten that minister forcing his kid to heat a beefburger) they finally admitted the “consensus” was wrong and introduced a policy.
As for the millennium bug – I was in a company and saw the masses and masses of marketing blurb from companies and “experts” trying to con the company out of money. Instead I explained that given the software in use the only problem we might have would be a few spreadsheets for analysis that could be quickly amended. The hype was out of all proportion to the real problem and most companies were just being conned out of money.
As I recall by midnight 31st December 1999 almost everyone knew it was an urban myth as was proved by the lack of any problem on the night. And you might like to know my father was one of the first people in the British Computer Society and he didn’t think much of the scam either.
RE: “. . .I find your faith in the ability of governments to correctly identify problems and to act quickly and effectively to sort them out quite comical.”
Like a gov’t. agency whose sole purpose is all things climate?
*Snort* Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck . . .
Look no further than last yr’s coin toss prediction from the MET office that only cost millions . . . particularly when there were professional, accurate alternatives that correctly identified problems (severe winter) so other gov’t agencies could act quickly . . . and would cost far, far less. Yes, I know if only they had another 20million or so for new computers.
Hopefully those of you paying will demand better – or turf the works of ’em.
-barn
I worked for a company that spent rather a lot of money fixing millenium bug isues for our customers – for FREE. We would rather have NOT done, it but our support contracts (and the fact there were hardware and software issues) demanded it.
Their was a lot of HYPE, ie bizarrely around nuke reactors etc, that industry that actually had thought ahead actually had no issues to speak of, (ie 4 digit years were designed in)
oher industries ie banking and telecoms, insurance paid rather lot of money to semi-retired, etc ex nuclear software engineera to help CHECK, and fix if required any issues..
Within the IT sector generally, it was quickly worked out, cheaper to implement new system than to check legacy systems (and as EVERYBODY was doing this at the same time, up went contractor rates, etc) which were going to eventually need replacing anyway..
Hence a rush to lots of new IT systems
..
This in part led to the bursting of the dot com bubble.. ie post Jan 2000, the next few years projects/upgrades, etc had all gone ahead/brought forward. leavig little work to do.
As for, ‘climate change’
The media are way out on a limb on this one.. lots of tentatitive article s(to check the public are with them) and awful lot of face saving to do.
it has started with criticiques of green energy (ie still believe in AGW) but bad solutions are fair game. witness Booker and the GWPF getting an awful lot of coverage in the Daily Mail in just the last few months (so much so that the Carbon Brief keeps writing about it).
I think one more cold snowy Northern Europe winter may well just finish the UK/EU media (and public off with respect to Cagw) off, and they will suddenly ‘scoop’ lots of climate change stories, that have been out their in blogland, for the last 2 years…