Skeptic blogger Jo Nova has always been one of my favorites, primarily because she tries to go beyond the old arguments and is willing to dig deeper to find and then make her points.
Jo has a post up with a brilliant chart showing the trend in estimates for sensitivity, reproduced here (red line is ECS, blue is TCR):
I’m sure a chart like this has the potential to be a Rorschach test of people’s sense of sensitivity, but for me it says that science works–that when temperatures began to stall despite exploding levels of CO2 emissions, scientists went back to the books and reworked the calculations and the numbers that served as inputs to those calculations.
I wish I had a corresponding chart that showed the level of virulence in attacks on anyone who opposed the Alarmist Konsensus. I believe it would show that right around the time of publication of lower sensitivity estimates in 2008 and again in 2012, the Alarmists with an axe to grind started looking for skeptic necks. It was then that attacks became alarmingly personal and ad campaigns shifted from pictures of cuddly cute polar bears to fanatics with red buttons blowing up skeptical children.
When those interested in public policy started reacting reasonably to these new scientific findings, such as with the Hartwell Paper, Fast Mitigation and The EcoModernist Manifesto, the Alarmists just shifted their attacks from the skeptics to the lukewarmers, using the same shabby tactics and insults, although they added new ones like ‘mitigation skeptic’ and ‘delayer’.
However, this has led to a bit of a reversal where the Konsensus ends up referring to older research as support for their nightmarish pronouncements and ignoring the more recent science that depicts a world that can thrive as well as survive the climate change that is coming. As an example, Michael Tobis just recently wrote ‘Lindzen has long since jumped the shark’, blissfully unaware that recent science has revived Lindzen’s concept of an Iris hypothesis.
Alternatively, the Konsensus tries to remain unaware of what saner people are advocating, which leads to absurdities like And Then There’s Physics writing post after post about how fuzzy he is on what EcoModernists are proposing, what Fast Mitigation really is and what Lukewarmers really think. He is eternally ‘struggling to understand’, but not struggling enough to actually read what we write.
Eli Rabett, on the other hand, isn’t struggling at all. He understands that his Stalinist position on climate purity is threatened by compromise and he will use any tactic to undermine any reasonable position, even to the extent of projecting ‘stalinistic’ to his opponents. (As I am to the left of Rabett on the political spectrum, I feel free to criticize his hypocrisy.) I guess he doesn’t own a mirror. Like any good Konsensus leftist atheist, he wrote five posts in a week praising Pope Francis’ encyclical, finding moral support in the writings of a Pope he wouldn’t listen to on any other issue ranging from abortion to gay rights. ATTP limited himself to one.
As with other insane arguments such as the one regarding divestment of fossil fuel stocks (they should realize at some point that another party must buy the stocks they are so eager to be rid of) or determining in advance how much of our fossil fuels we must leave in the ground (wouldn’t it be useful to learn how much we have and how much we are likely to need first?), the Alarmists move ever farther from the science and ever deeper into their own dark fantasies.
Maybe it’s not the current Pope or his encyclical they like so much–maybe they just long for the days when the Church could just organize an Inquisition…