Too Much Climate News: A Tale of Two Ice Caps, Cuccinelli Redux, And Halloween Zombie Climate Denier Justifications

It’s late Sunday morning in Taipei and I don’t want to spend the day in front of my computer. That means this will hopefully be succinct.

Watt’s Up With That highlights a new paper by Jay Zally, a person who previously had published work showing that Antarctica was losing ice. His new paper comes to the different conclusion that it is in fact gaining ice. This is important for two reasons–the first being that climate change theory postulates that Antarctica should be warming (not nearly as much as the Arctic, but there should be some). Increased ice can occur because warmer temperatures mean more snow over an area, but the finding is still surprising. The second important part of the paper, as Zally notes, is that if there isn’t as much Antarctic ice melting into the ocean, then where is the extra water coming from? That will keep scientists busy for a few years.

Over in Alarmist land, And Then There’s Physics  tries to explain away a similar gain in ice in Greenland. The huge ice cap is gaining mass. This leads inevitably to more pressure on the rivers of ice we call glaciers and more ice gets pushed into the ocean as a result. ATTP says we should still be worried because more ice is calving into the ocean than is forming on the ice cap. So climate is causing more ice to form, but the normal action of physics is causing more ice to fall into the sea. Of course, all this falling into the sea stuff actually amounts to 0.01% of the ice in Greenland–most of the ice is held in a ‘bowl’ carved out by the weight of the ice. It isn’t going anywhere. It’s not melting.

Of course, ATTP gets distracted in comments, holding a lively discussion on whether or not it is legitimate to use the term ‘climate denier.’  Interested parties can navigate over there to see the result. It will surprise no-one. ATTP held a lively debate on whether climate scientists should quit traveling by air to conferences. He bravely decided they should. Oh, I’ll spoil the surprise–ATTP thinks it’s perfectly okay to call people ‘climate deniers’, for the same reasons that it’s okay to call Jews ‘kikes’, Hispanics ‘greasers’, Italians ‘wops’, etc. Ya see, we’re all just pretending to be offended at being compared to Holocaust deniers.  We are cynically using their insults to gain an advantage in the climate debates.

Of course it doesn’t occur to the ‘struggling to understand’ ATTP that they could take away our new-found weapon by… quit using a degrading term coined by Fenton Communications and pushed actively through the media by DeSmogBlog in 2005. C’mon ATTP–make us weaker! Quit calling us deniers.

Never happen, though. Those using the term get too much of a testosterone charge when they call someone a ‘denier.’

Representative Lamar Smith has issued a subpoena for emails and records from NOAA scientists participating in Thomas Karl’s rather desperate attempt to prove the ‘pause’ in global warming never existed.

The pause did exist, and Karl’s paper is being contested where it should be–in the scientific literature.

What Representative Smith is doing is both wrong and stupid. Wrong, because we don’t need to create a climate of fear in science. Scientists should be able to communicate via email without re-reading every word they write with an eye on future investigations. Stupid, because witch hunts don’t increase your stature, reputation, amount of information or even the size of your… big toe.

When Cuccinelli did this with Michael Mann I opposed it, writing an open letter to Cuccinelli equating what he was doing with Salem’s search for witches. What Smith is doing is no different and I oppose it just as strongly.

To be clear, I have no objection for asking for data, models, calculations. But emails between scientists? No. That way lies poorer science.

Representative Lamar Smith, call off your dogs.

Update: Sorry for those in the comment thread. I just booted ATTP and yanked his posts. It will disrupt the threading. That’s four people I’ve booted in four years. Sigh…

43 responses to “Too Much Climate News: A Tale of Two Ice Caps, Cuccinelli Redux, And Halloween Zombie Climate Denier Justifications

  1. ResearchGate is starting to break the stranglehold on open discussion about possible causes of climate change other than anthropogenic (human).

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_Suns_pulsar_core_induce_homo-chirality_in_the_molecules_of_life_and_climate_change_in_the_planets_that_orbit_it

    • Geez! Could you keep your daily off-topic on your own blog?

      Please! It’s fracking insane to come to different blogs on daily basis just to spam a pulsar core crackpot link. I don’t know about our host but I’m up to throat full with this pulsar obsession of yours. You compete well with Doug Cotton in the find-the-kill-file/plonk series.

      • Wert,

        I do not want to offend you, but the mystery of separated right-handed and left-handed amino acids in living cells was partially solved in 1997 when partially separated d- and l-amino acids was discovered in the primitive Murchison meteorite.

        Before life began, d- and l-amino acids were partially separated by an asymmetric force acting on the evolution of complex organic chemicals that were the precursors of life.

        Circular polarized light from a pulsar in the early solar system was the likely source, as first suggested in that 1997 paper.

        Dr. Kenneth Towe posted this recent summary of the issue: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/

  2. no, it is not time to call off the dogs. “Progressives” get away with lying about themselves and criminalizing those who disagree.
    Sham papers being used to support climate hype deserve to be thoroughly exposed.
    The peer review and science funding systems are thoroughly broken.
    Shedding light is the only cure.
    As to ATTP and the other zombies relying calling skeptics deniers the same way and for the same reasons old southern racists relied on “ni@@er” is just more evidence of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy at heart of the climate obsession.

    • Hiya hunter! We’ll have to agree to disagree on subpoenas of discussions held via email. I think it will harm science, harm society and make the country far less democratic. Small ‘d’.

      • Tom, investigations be democrats starting on much less are apparently perfectly acceptable.
        The idea that government workers get to pick and choose what to divulge to lawful oversight is anti-democratic.
        “Scientists” are not a protected group of workers who have the privilege of secret unaccountable tax payer work.

  3. ” I have no objection for asking for data, models, calculations. But emails between scientists? No.”

    I completely disagree.

    Whenever a government agency goes after a corporation for a regulatory violation, what is the first thing they do? Subpoena internal communications.

    When you work for government, ALL of your work product including emails is the property of the people: no if’s, no and’s, no but’s.

    When you work for a corporation and your boss asks for all internal communication regarding a project you are working on, can you refuse? Only if you want to be fired.

    I will agree that asking for emails is bad form. I will agree that it inhibits the free flow of information – but by God, if Karl is caught discussing “how to abolish the pause” – the public has a right to know.

    • AI, as with hunter, we’ll have to agree to disagree. If they had prima facie evidence of wrong doing, that’s a different story. But a fishing expedition? No, and again no.

      • Tom, I get what you are saying but please think about the implications. The precedent being set is that agencies can hide whatever they want from Congress, if they believe Congress is on a “fishing expedition”. That would pretty much end the concept of governance.

        Again, what you said is true, “What Representative Smith is doing is both wrong and stupid”. It is however legal and refusing to honor a legal request undermines the authority of Congress and inhibits its ability to act on our behalf.

      • To clarify, I agree that Lamar Smith should call off your dogs – but there are two wrongs here, and NOAA’s refusal to hand over the emails is the greater, more dangerous wrong. Smith’s wrong undermines government science, NOAA’s wrong, undermines government.

      • Since there is an obvious orchestration to shove as many faux science papers into the public square to help hype the Paris boondoggle it is in fact perfectly reasonable to fish through those waters.

  4. “I think it is appalling to label someone on the basis of their origin. The only way that this could be comparable to using the term “climate science denier” is if such people were born as “climate science deniers”.” – ATTP

    By that logic – it is perfectly acceptable to use slurs against people who convert to Judaism. I suppose then, we all can call Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) derogatory names because of his conversion to Islam.

    How about just respecting people as people and disagreeing with their arguments?

    • To put a finer point on it, it is perfectly acceptable to say, “Your argument is climate denialism” It is not acceptable to say, “You are a climate denier.” One attacks the argument, the other attacks the person.

      • AI, I don’t agree again! Wow. Twice in one thread. I don’t think it’s okay to say ‘your argument is climate denialism.’ If you must say something stronger than ‘I disagree’, I would suggest anti-science or a-scientific.

        These goons, starting with James Hoggan, have stolen the term ‘denier’ and for the time being at least have handcuffed it to Holocaust denier.

        When they quit using it on people ranging from Barack Obama at the top to Andrew Revkin in the middle, all the way down to li’l ol’ me, then maybe the language can reclaim the word.

      • Given your email address, may I be permitted a wee bit of scepticism? I wouldn’t want to be associated with it either. As something who has recently been falsely associated with something on the internet, I understand that it might be upsetting. But there is the small matter of your email address…

      • ATTP, as someone who you have tried to defame by linking my name to something I didn’t write, I understand your pain. I hope you will forgive my lack of sympathy. I apologize for going to the blog with the same name as your email address and assuming it was yours.

        I visited your old blog. You do indeed say that you try not to use the words climate denier.

        You also say, ” if you don’t want people to think that you based your report on the views of climate skeptics/deniers don’t make it seem that you got information from WUWT and don’t quote Roy Spencer or Judith Curry.”

        Calling climate scientists ‘deniers’ seems a bit strange to me. Almost like it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about the science–if they disagree with you on policy that makes them a ‘denier.’

        You also say, “Andrew has come under quite a lot of criticism for using what many feel are typical skeptic (denier?) arguments, when conducting this interview.”

        And this: “Given that those who signed this declaration deny AGW, presumably they should be happy to be called deniers.”

        Pretty much a much of a muchness.

        You weren’t obsessed very much with Anthony Watts, were you? I’ve heard of cyberstalking, but the context was a little different.

      • You’re lying, ATTP. I told you I didn’t make the comment and you continued to link to it. You didn’t know it was from the same city until Connolley got involved last week.

        So you’re both lying and acting like a cheap weasel. What a surprise.

      • Although, actually, if you did know about the IP address before Connolley told us, then I’m back to thinking once again that you wrote it. Spoofing an IP address on WordPress isn’t rocket science. It’s not even physics. So… either you continued to post the link to something that I had told you I had not written out of sheer spite, or because you wanted maximum mileage for your stunt.

        From someone who obsessively followed Watts for years, it’s not unthinkable.

      • Wow. ATTP, you’re lying. I can’t believe you would tell an out and out lie. Are you trying to protect your reputation? You have none.

      • No, ATTP, you’ve had a long run here.You’re done.

  5. “you’re assuming that the term “climate science denier” is a slur.”

    I have rarely, seen it as anything but a slur. It would be accurate to call a person a climate science denier if they self-identified as such. It would also be accurate to label a person who made specific statements about anthropogenic global warming being “not being real”. However, hyperbole aside, there are very, very few people who say such things.

    What I see is a campaign of labeling people who argue for a low sensitivity and low climate change impact as being deniers. It is calculated to attack them personally and undermine their point of view in order to strengthen the high sensitivity, high impact position.

    It is meant as a slur. It is intended to resonate with Holocaust Denial.

  6. ResearchGate exposes seventy years (1945-2015) of deceit to hide the Sun’s influence on humanity:

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_seventy_years_of_worldwide_deceit_1945-2015_been_exposed

  7. One more thought about memos (emails).

    Today, the movie Truth hits thousands of theaters. It is a film about RatherGate, a story driven by a question of whether a memo regarding George Bush’s time in the Texas National Guard was authentic.

    I will not get into the politics or facts of RatherGate – but perhaps we should all reflect on the Freedom of Information laws. If an obscure memo regarding an order for an officer to report for a physical is public information – how can NOAA refuse to hand over public documents (emails) to Congress?

    The question of whether it is wise to subpoena the emails is quite another matter.

  8. “AI, I don’t agree again! Wow. Twice in one thread”

    Gosh Tom, I hope that doesn’t make us enemies. 🙂🙂🙂

  9. Pingback: Will Political Hardball Settle the Climate Debate or Kill It? | The Lukewarmer's Way

  10. Pingback: Fuller’s “Pogrom” | Izuru

  11. Pingback: Climate Hyperbole Is Dead | The Lukewarmer's Way

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