Is It Just Me Or Is Climate Change Making Everybody Crazy?

I hope the title is a two-sided attempt at humor. Certainly I get so frustrated at some of the looniness spouted by both extremes on the climate spectrum that I wonder if I am still sane. Certainly I wonder if people like Eli Rabett or Ted Cruz have lost all their marbles.

Crazy

In Time today, Cruz is quoted as saying ““If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming,” Cruz said in California’s Orange County. “The satellite says it ain’t happening.” Instead, Cruz said, government researchers are reverse engineering data sets to falsify changes in the climate. “They’re cooking the books. They’re actually adjusting the numbers,” Cruz said. “Enron used to do their books the same way.”

You might see something like that appear 200 comments down on a thread at Judith Curry’s fine weblog–there are some skeptics who think that 18 years is enough to prove warming either never happened or is finished. But for a candidate for the U.S. presidency to spout off nonsense like this is truly astonishing.

(For the record, we have had two similar pauses that lasted similar lengths of time in the past century, after which warming resumed. The physics functions. As for the adjustments, even skeptics eventually understand that when you measure temperatures in the morning for 50 years and then start measuring in the evenings–or vice versa–if you don’t adjust to account for it you will end up with bad numbers.)

It’s a crazy thing to say.

So too are two separate comments from Eli Rabett, host of the Rabett Run website.

The first is a comment he made here at The Lukewarmer’s Way where he flat out lied about economist Tim Worstall, linking him to economists listed as having worked for the tobacco industry. Worstall not only has not worked for the tobacco industry, his name isn’t even on the list Rabett linked to.

It’s crazy to tell a lie that’s so easy to spot.

Second, over at his site he compares Andrew Revkin to skeptic Sky Dragon aficionados, part of a long-running campaign to undercut Revkin in the same way Rabett, Tobis, ATTP and others have tried to undercut Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry.

Rabett claims that reviewing a paper is ‘a matter of ethics’, surprising all of us who felt that reviewing a scientific paper was well, a matter of science. He’s pissed at Revkin for submitting a comment on Hansen’s latest ‘what if’ excursion. Revkin noted two scientific papers that flew in the face of some of Hansen’s latest claims. Apparently noting that the Godfather of Green might be in error is tantamount to heresy.

Despite the fact that the same thing has happened to environmental journalists Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, both of whom like Revkin have been stalwart supporters of the climate cause until all of a sudden they actually reported something in opposition to the party line, the idea of trashing journalists who have supported your cause for years is, well, crazy.

Revkin is a top-notch j0urnalist. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.

9 responses to “Is It Just Me Or Is Climate Change Making Everybody Crazy?

  1. Lukewarmer,

    “But for a candidate for the U.S. presidency to spout off nonsense like this is truly astonishing.”
    I suspect you don’t pay much attention to politics. Pick a political topic, pretty much any will do, and you will find prominent politicians spouting similar nonsense (at least if you take the trouble to become as informed on the topic as you are on climate change). It applies to either party, although if you limit yourself to presidential candidates it is much easier to find Republican nonsense since there are so many.

    The sad truth is that politicians are pretty much forced to talk in sound bites and they can count on getting pummeled if they get subtle and try to make fine distinctions. And it is not their job to educate. So I try to take the same attitude toward such comments as a duck takes to rain.

    What bothers me is when pundits, who have no such excuses, do no better. Reducing news to entertainment is bad news for democracy.

  2. Tom, prominent climate catastrophe promoters stated years ago that a pause in warming over ~ 12 years would raise serious questions about the scenarios they were peddling.
    Since we have a President who has spouted world-class nonsense regarding how he will “fix” seal level rise, and who calls CO2 “carbon pollution” and uses EPA policies that were written by a jailed con-artist, I think there are targets much closer to home and more substantive than either Cruz or Eli.

  3. For most of his career, Revkin was thought of, as revealed in Climategate, as more of a lap dog by climate hypesters than a journalist.
    Eli is just outraged that the lapdog is not behaving as expected.
    As to what Eli thinks of the peer review process- well he just sort of demonstrates how corrupt the climate community is.

  4. Tim Worstall writes, ““Timmy Worstall? Eli knows about those libertarian economists http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2015/03/report-tobacco-institutes-1-million.html”

    1) I’m not an economist.

    2) I’m not a libertarian.

    3) I’ve never had any tobacco money.

    4) I’ve been arguing for something like the Rabett plan (ie, let’s just have a damn carbon tax and get it done) for a decade now. As Eli knows, given that he knows that William Connelly argues for it and he comments there and has seen that Connelly argues for it on the grounds that I do.

    Hell, I’ve argued at the Adam Smith Institute, Forbes and all those sorts of “right wing” places that the answer is to have that goddam carbon tax now.”

  5. You are talking about this carbon tax in terms so similar to those of paying extortion money as to make me think it is one of the more honestly described climate obsessed policies.
    Those who think the carbon tax would realize the 10 year look arounds, economic neutrality, and willingness for governments to let it go if turns out to be a false alarm are kidding themselves.

    • That really depends on the lawmakers, hunter. Doesn’t it? Republicans are in the majority in the House. They write the laws. If they want to write a law saying a carbon tax is to be revenue neutral, they can.

      • Tom,
        Who knows who will be in power in the future?
        Taxes once implemented seldom go away, if history is a guide.
        Taxes require bureaucracies to implement, and the money involved creates special interest groups.
        Look at the ethanol subsidy. It does not work. Never has.
        It is not going away anytime soon, if ever.
        The wind subsidy in Australia and elsewhere was written to the convenience of the wind insiders. It will drain the Australian energy and tax payer money for decades to come.
        Lastly, look at the way Tim Worstall talks about this tax: with resignation.
        For me, I think the carbon tax is a hilarious example of just how crazy the cliamte social madness really is.
        Imagine anyone seriously thinking taxing “carbon” will control the still-not objectively defined “climate”.

  6. It’s not just you. There does seem to be something about the climate issue that seems to make some people incapable of rational thought. Not quite ‘everybody’ though!

    • Like the eugenics social madness of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the madness mostly effects those who are either “progressives” or in leadership positions or both.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s