Rules for Climate Radicals; ‘Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty’

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/rules-for-climate-radicals-accuse-the-other-side-of-that-which-you-are-guilty/

Watching the recent US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific MethodClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, it became abundantly clear that the topic of climate change is a war being fought on two fronts. The science front was represented Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and the political front was represented by Dr. Michael Mann. The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the

The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the climate change gravy train. To them, the truth represents a cut in pay and must be denied and undermined, not embraced. A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like

A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like throwing tuna to the sharks.

In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,

Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.

Real science is …

Climate ‘Science’ is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

8a937b7c2319be52c09a40bf74d6c400

Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effectand solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.

Point 2) Climate “science” is extremely hostile towards anyone that is critical, and the hostility is well documented. This hostility is so endemic to the climate alarmists that they verbally smear opponents during congressional testimony, and put their smears in writing. Denier 3

Capture17

Point #3) Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade. Real science uses terms like “scientific method,” “rejecting the Null at a 95% confidence level,” “R-Squared of 0.80,” “experimentation,” “conclusion” and back everything with numbers. Climate science uses terms like “computer model/simulation,” “consensus,” “scientific organizations agree, and “peer review.” Climate “science” is run more like a popularity contest than a real science.

Point #4) Climate “science” makes grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence. The endless “tipping points” that have come and gone, as well as the “100% of warming is due to man” claim, are evidence of this. The most damning evidence however at the IPCC computer models. The computer models quantified the grandiose expectations, and they all failed.Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

Point #5 Cherry picks only favorable evidence, and relies on testimonials and or weak evidence. Ironically, the best examples of this are also the best-known arguments the climate alarmists make. The N Pole is losing ice, but it is largely due to natural forces. The S Pole, that isn’t impacted by these natural forces is actually gaining ice. The other example if the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier that is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.

Point #6) Uses flawed methods that are not repeatable. The “Hockey-Stick” is the greatest example of this. This critical piece of “evidence” used to support the AGW theory used manufactured, researcher specific …

House Democrats urge teachers to trash book by climate scientists on global-warming dissent

– The Washington Times – Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Three ranking House Democrats on Monday urged teachers to throw away copies of a book written by climate scientists challenging the catastrophic global-warming view, saying the nation’s schools are “inappropriate” forums for such a discussion.

The Democratic blast at “climate deniers” came in response to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute to distribute free DVDs and copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, Virginia Democrat, ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

“Successful high school graduates are aware and engaged global citizens with an understanding of and appreciation for scientific fact,” said Mr. Scott in a press release. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast fired off a statement Monday asking, “Is this a belated April Fool’s Day joke? If not, it should be. This is hilarious.”

Queer Climate Activists Twerk on Ivanka Trump’s Front Lawn

By Ashley Rae Goldenberg |

Gay rights advocates danced in front of Ivanka Trump’s Washington, D.C. residence on Saturday to “WERK for Mother Earth” as part of the Queer Dance Party for Climate Justice (warning: strong language).

The event, hosted by Queer Resistance, WERK for Peace, 350 DC, and the Trans Women of Color Collective, gathered over a hundred people to protest against the Trump administration allegedly “rolling back environmental regulations” and “revok[ing] protections for LGBTQ government employees.”

Lourdes Ashley Hunter, the executive director of the Trans Women of Color Collective told the crowd “Dance is a language of revolution,” and to “Get ready to twerk. F*** up her (Ivanka’s) lawn.”

“I got one more thing to say,” Hunter added before telling the crowd to stay warm and dance, “F**k the police! F**k the motherf**king police!”

According to the event description on Facebook, the organizers take offense to Ivanka having been described as the “BFF of the gays,” even though she reportedly helped stop the Trump administration from enacting an executive order regarding federal LGBTQ protections.

Her father, President Donald Trump, championed gay rights at the Republican National Convention, held the gay pride flag high during a speech, said transgender icon Caitlyn Jenner can use any restroom she chooses, and is the first president to be inaugurated supporting gay marriage.…

Anti-Trump ‘March For Science’ Protest Has Problems W/ Bill Nye Because He’s A White Guy

The March for Science is another one of those liberal anti-Trump rallies. This one is being organized by scientists who believe the Trump administration is planning on reversing every scientific discovery since Copernicus. Originally they chose Bill Nye the fraudulent science guy as their public face, but there was an uprising against the decision because he’s a white guy.

 

The March for Life is a protest against what liberal scientists believe is President Trump’s anti-Science agenda:

Nearly 400 marches in 37 countries will take place on April 22, demonstrating global resistance to Trump agenda

President Donald Trump’s administration has fulfilled his campaign rhetoric when it comes to waging war on science, from erasing WhiteHouse.gov references to climate change on the day of his inauguration, to banning the term “climate change” at the Department of Energy’s climate office, to proposing massive cuts to medical research to fund a new U.S.-Mexico border wall.

On April 22, a global March for Science will see 400 events in 37 countries, with a massive march in Washington, D.C. Organizers also announced Thursday that prominent scientists Bill Nye, Lydia Villa-Komaroff, and Mona Hanna-Attisha will be honorary co-chairs of the March for Science

One would think that if the March For Science organizers would have problems with Bill Nye as their public face it would be because he is not now, nor has he ever been a real science guy. Just a Steve Martin impersonator who became a sketch comedy guy.

Heat Street reports

They were supposed to have gotten their internal issues under control, but this week a new fight broke out over whether Bill Nye the Science Guy, the former children’s television host who considers himself the leader of the “pro-science movement” should lead the protest. The problem? Nye is a “white male.”

Nye, who is not, in fact, a scientist, except on television (he’s an engineer by trade), was slated to be the March’s chair, and an announcement was made last week. But organizers quickly panicked that having Nye at the forefront of the event meant they might be substantiating the idea that scientists are only old white men.…

Watch: ‘People’s Climate March’ organizer calls for violence at DC March ‘Somebody, & somebodies, are gonna need to go to jail’

On March 20, 2017, George Washington University student Aidan Johnston went undercover and attended the 2017 People’s Climate March planning meeting. The March is scheduled for Saturday, April 29 in Washington D.C.

“We wanted to see if this meeting was really about climate change and protecting the environment, or if it was actually about bringing down capitalism and advocating socialism,” said Johnston. “I had no idea that it was going to turn into advocating for violence.”

Reverend Graylan Halger of Plymouth UCC Church in Washington D.C. took to the microphone, called out “greedy” billionaires and the fallacies of capitalism, then threatened violence against those who got in the way of creating a new order.

“We need to jack up those who are trying to jack us up!” “We gotta put our bodies on the line. Somebody, and somebodies, are gonna need to go to jail. And somebodies, are gonna need to disrupt some things in this country.”

Those are just a few excerpts of the things that were said by Halger, all which were met by thunderous applause from the audience.

Analysis: ‘Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself before Congress’

by JULIE KELLY March 30, 2017 5:23 PM

If the climate-change evangelist can’t be bothered to take a House hearing seriously, why should anyone take him seriously? In his testimony to the House Science Committee on Wednesday, Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, told the story of Trofim Lysenko, a plant scientist who worked for Stalinist Russia: Lysenko was a Russian agronomist and it became Leninist doctrine to impose his views about heredity, which were crackpot theories, completely at odds with the world’s scientists. Under Stalin, scientists were being jailed if they disagreed with his theories about agriculture. And Russian agriculture actually suffered, scientists were jailed, many died in their jail cells and potentially millions of people suffered from the disastrous agriculture policies that followed from that. The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment. But astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag. It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude…

Michael Mann Vs the Truth at Congressional Climate Hearing – Caught in Multiple Provable Falsehoods

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 31 Mar 201751

Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.

Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)

This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here.

So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:

“Liar, liar. Your pants on fire.”

Here’s the evidence:

Porkie Number One

Mann told the Congressional hearing he had no association or affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute (one of the numerous ad hoc organisations formed in order to give the harassment of climate sceptics an air of scientific credibility).

Yet according to his CV he sits on the Climate Accountability Institute’s advisory board and has done since 2014.

Porkie Number Two

Mann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.

“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.

To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”

You can watch the moment where Curry smacks him down below:

Mann then proceeded indignantly to quibble that though he might have called Curry a “climate science denier” he hadn’t called her a “climate change denier”. [As if there’s any meaningful distinction between the two slurs]. But this claim – as Stephen McIntyre notes – was also a lie.

confronted with written evidence that he called Curry “climate science denier”, Mann said he hadnt called her “climate CHANGE denier”.

Watch: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry smacks down warmist Michael Mann for denying calling her a ‘denier’

 

AP’s Borenstein calls out Michael Mann for a whopper: ‘Mann said he didn’t call Curry a denier. But in his written testimony he called Curry ‘a climate science denier’ – Associated Press: At first Mann said he didn’t call Curry a denier. But in his written not oral testimony he called Curry “a climate science denier.” Mann said there’s a difference between denying climate change and “denying established science” on how much humans cause climate change, which he said Curry did.

Also see: Warmist Michael Mann tells whopper at congressional science hearing?