Heliogenic Climate Change

“

For more than a quarter century controversy has embroiled the scientific community over whether carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas formed from burning fossil fuels, is causing increased global temperatures with catastrophic consequences. This is also called anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Many supporters of AGW are adamant in their views and refuse to acknowledge the existence of scientists or the science that refutes their views. Some [AGW] advocates could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering terms to describe those who disagree with them. …

After WWI, a movement was started to promote accomplishments of German physicists which soon took on racial aspects because these accomplishments were restricted to Aryan or German physicists <www.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeutschePhysik>. Thousands joined this movement and notable members where Nobel Prize Winners Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard. Naturally, Aryan Physics excluded the works of Jewish scientists; most famous being Albert Einstein. …

They saw that the works of Jewish scientists were stricken from textbooks, papers could not be published in scientific journals, research funds denied, and finally by the mid 1930s, employment with universities or research institutions terminated. Jewish science was ignored. Supporters of Aryan Physics could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering names to describe Jewish scientists. …

Finally Aryan Physics fell apart because it was recognized the Secrets of the Universe could not be unlocked without use of Einstein’s Theories. …

The behavior of many AGW advocates is remarkably similar to that of supporters of Aryan Physics in 1930s Germany. They ignore entreaties of scientists who disagree with them. They attempt to stifle publications of research papers, obstruct funds for research that challenges AGW, and refuse public debate on the science of AGW.

It is ironic that scientists who question AGW are placed in a similar position as Jewish scientists in 1930s Germany. Their fate is most certainly not as grim. Labelling those who question AGW as deniers implying they deny the Holocaust is immoral.” “

Aryan Physics Revisited: A Comparison of 1930s German Physics and Global Warming Science Today“, essay by James H. Rust from CCNet September 17.
-

Read Garth Paltridge’s account of why the Journal of Climate refused to publish this paper because a reviewer opined that “the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range”:

“The upper-level negative trends in q [specific humidity] are inconsistent with climate-model calculations … Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. …

Climate models (for various obscure reasons) tend to maintain constant relative humidity at each atmospheric level, and therefore have an increasing absolute humidity at each level as the surface and atmospheric temperatures increase. This behaviour in the upper levels of the models produces a positive feedback which more than doubles the temperature rise calculated to be the consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2.

The bottom line is that, if (repeat if) one could believe the NCEP data ‘as is’, water vapour feedback over the last 35 years has been negative. And if the pattern were to continue into the future, one would expect water vapour feedback in the climate system to halve rather than double the temperature rise due to increasing CO2.” “A Peek behind the Curtain“

“Author Patrick Michaels describes the plight of those state climatologists, academics all, who have expressed opinions or even just distributed data that tended to refute the AGW opinions of state governors. In each case, a Democratic governor has driven a state climatologist from his university job for the expression, in good faith, of scientifically informed opinions about anthropogenic climate change. …

Imagine the outrage if Republicans had done these things, and remember these men the next time you are pinned to the wall at a cocktail party by some liberal whining that the Bush administration politicized science in some unique way.” “Politicizing science from the left: The dissenting state climatologists“
-

He’s lucky. In days past he would have been burned at the stake:

“Interestingly Bond University has a new name for its business and IT faculties, The Faculty of Business, Technology & Sustainable Development, but apparently didn’t like Professor Jenkins’ very public opinion on the subject of sustainable development. For his opinion, Professor Jenkins received an official reprimand from the Bond University Registrar and then was informed last Friday that his adjunct status had been revoked.” “Bond University Dismisses Climate Change Sceptic“

”Yesterday Dr Jensen suggested in the Australian Parliament that many of the current problems facing the Murray Darling Basin are the result of low runoff as a consequence of changed land management practices (including more plantations in the top of catchments), catchment-wide drainage management plans (place in the 1980s and 1990s to lower water tables) and more efficient water use (resulting in less leakage).

He explained that it was wrong to blame climate change for the low levels in the dams, because there had been no long term decline in rainfall in the Basin. …

When Dr Jensen asked to table supporting information in the Parliament by way of charts and tables, the request was denied.” “Australian Parliamentarian, and Sceptic, Banned from Tabling Climate Data“
-

h/t Tom Nelson: “More from the hockey team“
-

“A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.” “Lawyers call for international court for the environment“
-

Politico apologizes for Erika Lovley’s heresy: “Editor’s Response from Politico’s Jeanne Cummings“
-

“This piece in Politico yesterday, daring to acknowledge scientific debate about “global warming,” was not about to go untouched by the opprobrium of the Green noise machine, which is dedicated to teaching anyone who dares speak up that it might not be beneficial to their careers.

On cue, aspiring Obama administration climate thug Joe Romm of the Soros-funded Climate Progress — who blamed the Minneapolis bridge collapse on global warming, among other absurdities — and David “Nuremburg-syle trials for those b@$tards” Roberts of Grist did what they’re paid to do: change the subject by attacking the person with names and slurs.

Upon seeing the story yesterday, I wrote the reporter, Erika Lovely (whom I do not know and to whom I have never spoken) to note as much — commenting that, if she knew this going in, she was brave (surely braver than most journos) and if not, well, she should just take what’s about to come her way as instructive. What does it tell you that some people rush to lash out with (typically personal) nastiness at the public expression of ideas of which they do not approve?

After all, while we’re used to the Left’s mindset — that every one of their ideas needs to be a law and tolerance only extends so far as it suits their ideology or biases — as I have demonstrated, there is a remarkable Gang Green that seizes upon all heretical thought or speech and seeks to teach its purveyor a painful lesson.

This is indeed a movement premised on fear — fear of debate, democracy, and science. Their biggest problem is that numbers don’t lie and the public are still allowed to look out the window. So, children: throw your sticks and stones, and take your taxpayer-funded billions to play with computer models to create the scariest future scenarios you can engineer — and the scenarios are engineered — and it still won’t change the fact that the sky is where it always was and there remains no observational evidence to suggest it’s falling.
Life’s tough.” “Erika Lovely, Welcome to the Show“

“Ballsy.

That is perhaps best word to describe a class action lawsuit filed this week in the International Criminal Court in The Hague in Holland against national governments refusing to act on reducing carbon emissions.

The suit was filed by climate activist Danny Bloom who is asking for “US$1 billion dollars in damages on behalf of future generations of human beings on Earth – if there are any”.

No Joke.

The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from “”all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth’s ecosystem and the very future of the human species.” …

According to Bloom, the legal action “is about trying to protect future generations of mankind, humankind, and a positive judgment in this case will help prod more people to take the issues of climate change and global warming more seriously. We fully intend to make all world leaders of today responsible for their actions in the present day and age.” …

It would also be the first case of its kind to seek to act on behalf of future generations for the irresponsibility of their ancestors. …

Back to Mr. Bloom. His lawsuit seems directly targeted towards such irresponsible nations like Canada that have refused to take this issue seriously.” “Putting climate laggards on trial“

h/t Anthony Watts

“Dr Roy Spencer is a well known climate sceptic who has published extensively in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and earlier this year had a popular book published entitled ‘Climate Confusion’.

“Ethan Greenhart has argued that climate-change denial should be recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a “mental disorder” and that there should be “eco-lobotomies” for persistent deniers. Well, this is only a more extreme version of a leading British Green’s demand for “international criminal tribunals” to try those who “preach the gospel of denial.” Yet it turns out that many Greens are already discussing the “psychological processes” that contribute to climate change denial, with The Ecologist, an influential British magazine, arguing that “angrily denying the problem [of climate change] outright” is a form of “psychotic denial.” Perhaps eco-lobotomies aren’t so far off now.” “Stranger than fiction“

“Michael E. Mann, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist [WHAT?!], had just spent an hour explaining why he thinks there is virtual scientific consensus that people are causing the earth to warm and sea levels to rise, when a self-described “left-leaning, pro-environment person,” a meteorologist, rose to angrily dispute him.

The critic said thousands of scientists disagree with Mann’s contention that carbon dioxide is causing climate change. Others have discredited Mann’s figures on unprecedented temperature hikes. … “I’ve spent a lot of time in the last 10 years researching this matter. It is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind.”

Natural forces don’t account for the warming that is being observed, [Mann] said. Only carbon dioxide fits. Then he added:

“A fossil-fuel funded amateur [Steve McIntyre] has a Web site that vilifies scientists in my field,” he said. Questions about his data were rejected, he said, by the National Academy of Science [wrong, it verified McIntyre] and by the United Nations’ International [sic] Panel on Climate Change.

“I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination has our science been discredited, except perhaps by some far-out fringe of the blogosphere.” …

He later said he is used to the attacks. Climate change skeptics see that they are losing the scientific arguments, he said, so they are stepping up ad hominem attacks on scientists.” “At URI, Nobel Prize-winning scientist answers critics of climate change“

I think Steve McIntyre has shown who the amateur is.

This glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, a “professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University“, no doubt considers himself an expert in “climate science”. After all, all his colleagues agree, and the enemy are right wingers:

“Climate change, for example, poses dire threats to the planet that must be assessed according to prevailing scientific norms and the evolving capacity of climate science. The Nobel Prize-winning global scientific process called the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has set the gold standard for scientific rigor in analyzing the threats of human-induced climate change. We need scientifically literate politicians adept at evidence-based critical thinking to translate these findings and recommendations into policy and international agreements.

In the US, however, the attitudes of President Bush, leading Republicans, and now Sarah Palin, have been the opposite of scientific. The White House did all it could for eight years to hide the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are contributing to climate change. It tried to prevent government scientists from speaking honestly to the public. The Wall Street Journal has similarly peddled anti-science and pseudo-science to oppose policies to fight human-induced climate change. …

They reflect the fact that a significant portion of American society, which currently votes mainly Republican, rejects or is simply unaware of basic scientific evidence regarding climate change … . These voters … reject the evidence and advice of scientists regarding public policies.

Recent survey data by the Pew Foundation found that while 58 percent of Democrats believe that human beings are causing global warming, only 28 percent of Republicans do. …

To be sure, some of these deniers are simply scientifically ignorant, having been failed by the poor quality of science education in America. …

The US must return to the global consensus based on shared science rather than anti-intellectualism. That is the urgent challenge at the heart of American society today.” “The American anti-intellectual threat“

Earth to Jeffrey: consensus is not science, and science is not consensus; the IPCC is not a scientific process, it is a political process; it’s not the gold standard for scientific rigor, it’s the fool’s gold standard for ecotheist political correctness.

He’s right though about the poor quality of science education in America (as he and his ecotheist fundamentalist cohorts amply demonstrate) and the anti-intellectual threat it poses (ditto).

Richard Lindzen (see prior post) shows how green political correctness has replaced science in the field of “climate science”. Right on cue, the Meteorological Office confirms that Lindzen is right with this elitist, condescending, and anti-scientific screed on it’s official, taxpayer-funded website:

“Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear – the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise.” “Global warming goes on“

These ecotheist political operatives, who have hijacked “climate science”, are every bit as theological as Torquemada and the Inquisition, and just as vindictive and vicious. Thankfully they can no longer burn heretics at the stake, as they did in times past, now all they can do is attempt to destroy them with lies. “I don’t care what the evidence is, I tell you the globe is warming, humans are to blame, and we’re all going to die if you don’t give me all the money I want and do exactly as I command!”

This is an absolute must read paper from Richard Lindzen:

“When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.” “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?“

“It’s not we who make the public sceptical on climate change” “Don’t blame Channel 4. It is greens trying to stamp out dissent who harm their own cause.”

What a sad state of affairs. Science is suffering the repression of a new Inquisition:

“I HEAR on the scientific grapevine that CSIRO’s biggest problem when providing formal advice to the federal Government on the matter of climate change is to say nothing that can be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the army of irresponsible sceptics out there who are doubtful about the dreadful consequences of global warming.

One can only feel sorry for the Government. Where can it go these days to get unbiased advice on the issue of global warming? Its official sources are poisoned by the fear among many scientists that they may be labelled by their colleagues and by their institutions as climate-change sceptics.” “Advice is poisoned by fear“

In the 1930s and 1940s in the Soviet Union the “consensus” view, championed by Lysenko, was that acquired characteristics were inherited. Wikipedia: “Many geneticists were executed … or sent to labor camps. … Genetics was stigmatized as a ‘bourgeois science’ or ‘fascist science’. … In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience“; all geneticists were fired from work (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued.”

Nowadays scientists who don’t buy the AGW religion can’t be executed or sent to labor camps, but they can lose their jobs and funding and be stigmatized as “deniers” and be called “climate criminals”. Not much has changed.

He is a RealClimate person along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt and, like them, a true believer, and as a Wikipedia administrator he edits and deletes from Wikipedia anything which is heretical: “The Opinionator: Solomon“

Which is why the Wikipedia climate pages are basically an extension of RealClimate. Just read the whitewash apologia of Mann’s phoney “hockey stick”.