The Climate Consensus vs. The Klimate Konsensus

Those who stand in opposition to the popular madness that is the climate debate have spent a lot of time identifying the differences we have with each other. Hence we Lukewarmers look carefully at where we differ from full-throated skeptics and how far we really are from the consensus science, while skeptics proudly identify how they are different from Lukewarmers.

We haven’t spent enough time looking at the differences between those on the other side of the issue and that inattention has not helped us.


If the proposition is worded carefully and conservatively, about 80% of scientists working in the various fields of climate science agree with the statement that the globe is warming and that human emissions of CO2 have contributed to this warming.

Many skeptics and almost all lukewarmers would agree with such a statement as well.

But because careful wording to reach this high level of agreement must leave out speculation about the future extent and impacts of global warming, this very real consensus is mostly ignored by NGOs and activists pushing for extensive action to reduce emissions in the very short term. They are the Klimate Konsensus.

As discussed here and at many other places, these NGOs, activists and some political figures have worked hard to create an image of a much higher level of consensus, not only on the current state of the climate but on the notion that the extent of future global warming will be dramatic and the impacts both significant and negative.

To do this, the NGOs, activists and political figures make stuff up. There is no kinder way to characterize the literature reviews conducted by Naomi Oreskes, John Cook et al and Anderegg, Prall et al. All of these published papers rely on a strategy of carefully constructing search strings that hide an existing diversity of opinion instead of capturing it, mischaracterizing the thrust of published papers and arriving at surreal levels of 97% agreement, which in their papers they (incorrectly) say describes published literature but on their websites they claim represents the opinions of scientists.

Where the very real consensus acts carefully and conservatively (with scientists like von Storch and Bart Verheggen actually conducting very careful surveys that arrive at the 80% consensus figure mentioned above) the Konsensus tribe clings to the nonsensical 97% number and trashes hard-working scientists like von Storch.

Where the very real consensus looks carefully at the recent pause in the rise of global temperatures and tries to understand why it has occurred, the Krazy Klimate Konsensus denies that it has happened at all and accuses their opponents in the discussion of manufacturing it.

The very real and careful consensus creates a forum for discussion of issues,such as Climate Dialogue. The Konsensus creates propaganda sites like Skeptical Science, which combines accurate reporting of the basics of climate change with slanted and hyperbolic descriptions of current climate events. The Konsensus decided deliberately not to debate their policy opponents, preferring to lie about their connections to Big Oil and Big Tobacco and coming up with the phrase ‘climate change deniers’ to characterize all their opponents, creating an Alice In Wonderland world where Nobel Prize winners and distinguished professors with hundreds of published peer-reviewed papers are accused of denying climate science and quite deliberately associated with skinhead thugs who deny the Holocaust ever occurred.

Scientists belonging to the very real and conservative consensus have largely kept their silence regarding the abhorrent behavior of the Klimate Konsensus, as the Konsensus has shown itself perfectly capable of throwing scientists under the bus if they dare to oppose the media blitz and hateful propaganda the Konsensus employs on a daily basis. This lack of courage is lamentable, if understandable, and has left the public stage to the Konsensus.

However, the Konsensus is unlikeable, arrogant and short-sighted. They are often seen to brag about that, saying ‘I’m sure (insert name of opponent) is a nice human being but it doesn’t matter in the face of the coming catastrophe.

This has led to the wider public acknowledging the very real and conservative truth about recent climate change without being persuaded to take concerted and effective action to confront it.

The Krazy Klimate Konsensus is wrong on the science. It is wrong on its approach to the scientific community. It is wrong on the approach and the facts used in the public debate. When confronted with uncomfortable facts, the Konsensus hides behind the more sober consensus science that it ignores the remainder of the time.

The consensus is concerned about future impacts of climate change, but quite properly assesses the risk to be expensive but manageable. The Konsensus exaggerates real science and creates iconography of doomed polar bears, Himalayan glaciers and the Amazon rainforest.

The careful and conservative consensus takes recent studies showing lower sensitivity seriously, incorporating these new studies into their thinking and projections. The Konsensus ignores these studies when it can and fulminates against them when they can’t.

The consensus needs to come up with an effective way of dealing with the harm the Konsensus is causing. Skeptics and Lukewarmers cannot do this for them. Until then, the polarized camps cannot agree on action, despite broad agreement on the consensus science. The Konsensus won’t let it happen.

The true enemy of the very real and conservative consensus on climate change and its causes is not the skeptic brigade. It is not Lukewarmers. The biggest threat to climate science is the Klimate Konsensus. Viscount Monckton is not a threat. Marc Morano is not a threat. The Koch Brothers are not a threat. They are all obstacles–something science has to overcome on every big issue.

What’s killing climate science is the Konsensus.


6 responses to “The Climate Consensus vs. The Klimate Konsensus

  1. Tom, I still read your posts. Commenting here borders on futile. I will suggest something that might cause a break through.
    Concentrate on Oreskes. The others might believe that they are fighting a noble crusade and the ends justify the means. Oreskes knows she’s lying and doesn’t give a damn about the earth, but she is very skillful.
    She wrote 3 books. Everyone who has paid attention realizes that she is lying in the 3rd. What the pseudo skeptics don’t realize, is that the lies started in the 2nd if not the 1st book. She laid her ground work well.
    She wrote an article on Obama’s energy policy for the Nation. While appearing to attack fracking/horizontal drilling, she actually crafted a very subtle apology for it.
    Take a good look at where her funding comes from.

    • Marty, attributing the climate obsession to paid mercenary motives is wildly simplistic. Also, your inability to produce actual fact-based arguments against fracking is well demonstrated.

  2. Marty, I believe I have read every link you have posted. Which one(s) specifically are you referring to?

  3. Pingback: Kibitzing on Klimate Konversations | The Lukewarmer's Way

  4. Pingback: …The Second Time as Farce | Climate Scepticism

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s