The Climate Wars.

Every one, an unpaid volunteer.

If you’ve ever fought someone much bigger and stronger than you, then you learn some lessons quickly or you perish. If you stand your ground, they’ll destroy you, because they’re just so much more powerful than you, so you give ground.

You’ve still got to fight them, so you jab at them as you give ground and go slowly backwards. That’s just tactics. Ground means nothing; it’s pinning and destroying your enemy in the end that’s important. Usually, they’re big bastards not used to people smaller than them standing up to them, so they go after you even harder. It’s a pride thing. You’re going to be made an example of and you know it. They’ve got pretty much everything in terms of advantages but you’ve got heart and mind and you want to survive, not win. That is a big difference. If you can just hang on in there, then you can maybe build from that position.

You have to stop thinking of it as a battle but just a part of a bigger campaign. Bullies do battles very well but campaigns very badly. This particular battle you’ve got no possibility of winning but neither are you going to lose it. The tactical objective is for it to be non-decisive. In strategic terms, you hope to win the campaign by not being exterminated in any particular battle of it. You begin to accept that you are going to have to take some bad beatings but that never means you’re giving up. It’s going to be a slow, miserable and painful business.

It doesn’t matter how many of the opening rounds you lose because you see, by refusing to give up and die, that in itself is a victory. Too many people have already walked away from even fighting the first round; you’re on your own and you know it and that’s just the way the thing is.

You take the punishment but you watch them and learn about them. That left shoulder drops, prepare for that big right roundhouse. The left foot slides backward a fraction and that left shoulder rises, watch for that big right upper cut, coming all the way up from the basement. The head comes back, expect a straight jab. You learn you can break your fists on their chin because it’s made out of granite. They’ve got big upper body development, so you could hammer away on it all day like it’s a side of beef and just tire yourself out.

You learn some stuff about yourself too.

They will land the big hits on you. Some of them will be below the belt but rules like that don’t matter to them, because the referee is on their side too. I suppose that’s where your heart comes in. They beat the hell out of you in that round and you’re on the floor looking up at them and spitting a tooth. It’s all a bit fuzzy, you can’t see them too well but you can see them crowing over putting you on your ass but they’ve made a mistake; they didn’t kill you. You’re still there, still alive and still in the fight and there will be another day and it will be a better one.

You might not have the strength left to get to your feet but you’ve got enough to rock from side to side until eventually you’ve got enough momentum to roll over onto your stomach. The next bit is hard; slide those knees up under you. You do that bit and the arms are still good enough to push hard to get you on all fours. By this stage, your arms have taken encouragement from your legs, so they all act together to get you back on your feet, just in time for the next round and a bit more punishment. You’re up and although a bit wobbly, ready to rock again.

They are just so strong. What can you do?

I have fought the evil anti-human thing that environmentalism metastasised into for many years. I’ve seen good people I had a regard for smashed into the ground by it, because in all innocence, they simply couldn’t help but voice their honest concerns about the simple accuracy of the science or the logical implications of its policies, both for humanity in general and the most vulnerable people on the planet in particular.

Those people were too civilised and decent to understand what they were dealing with; raw naked brutality, so they were destroyed by it. They lost tenure, they lost jobs and they lost that inner optimism that every true scientist still retains in their silly, secret, heart of hearts, about some innate goodness or at least some basic objectivity that they always believed was at the centre of science. What they could never understand was that scientific integrity was irrelevant, it was always about politics, power and money.

They were casualties of war and shouldn’t be forgotten, though they have been. Perhaps in the decades to come, someone will tell their stories. They were good people and deserve that.

You have to find new ways of fighting, because the only way of surviving in that ring with them, is never to get into that ring with them. They’re simply too powerful. You’re going up against official government policy, every major politician, well-funded activist organisations, the scientific establishment, the big moneymen and every organ of the media.

Fighting them with all your heart just isn’t good enough; you’ve got to fight them with your head as well. You have to become a thinker and a planner, to use what you’ve learnt about them and utilise what few resources you have, to somehow come up with a strategy to beat them.

It becomes asymmetric warfare, Robert Taber’s War of the Flea. When you hit them, it’ll never be from the front. It’s hit and run and you always come for them from behind or unexpectedly out of left field. They flail about powerfully but you duck and dive and make sure nothing lands. You learn to use their power and momentum against them, goading them to chase you into narrow situations in which you have control for a change and their full might can’t be brought to bear. It’s strategic JuJitsu. You fight them on your turf and on your terms, never on their’s and only when you know you have a winning tactical advantage. As long as you keep resisting them and surviving, they can’t win. A long guerilla war of attrition is the only strategy available and you know it’ll grind on for years and it did.

The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at. They had the equivalents of the big guns and the massive air support but there never was a skeptic HQ to be pounded, no big central organisation, no massed ranks of skeptic soldiers or even any third-party backing the resistance. Every one of the skeptics was a lone volunteer guerilla fighter, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some massive hidden organisation orchestrating the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that only existed in their head, each of the guerillas chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way.

The closest thing they had to a target were the skeptic blogs but these were invulnerable, because they weren’t owned or funded by anyone and were run by unpaid volunteers. The best they could do was vilify the bloggers and send occasional waves of trolls to disrupt the debates, which gradually but inexorably tore the heart out of the pseudo-science, which underpinned global warming.

I think the tide finally started to turn about six months before Climategate I and the Copenhagen debacle. Since then, for a number of reasons and following the various “gates”, it’s all been downhill for the alarmists. I gave my thoughts on why it happened in this piece here but the sheer speed of the movement’s implosion has caught everyone by surprise, including me.

When you look at the Fakegate scandal in the light of the history of the war, the reactions of both sides reflects the nature of the combatants it produced. On the day the material was published, the realists knew something concrete straight away while the alarmists fervently hoped they had something concrete. We knew it was suspect whereas they hoped it was true.

We knew it was suspect because we each knew there was no massive hidden organisation controlling and backing our efforts and there never has been either. Given that fact, the forensics began and that’s why nothing much happened on the skeptic side in immediate response to the publication. Within a few days, in a collective effort using writing style and IT analysis skills that would have put the best forensic lab in the world to shame, the identity thief had been tracked down and the faked material exposed.

The NY Times, with all its resources, went into print on it using several reporters and didn’t once get in touch with the Heartland Institute, not even to get a quote. The DeSmogBlog published within an hour of receipt, again, with absolutely no attempt to verify the material. They abandoned all pretence of journalistic professionalism, because they thought they’d finally found that elusive big target they’d always believed in and hunted so desperately and proceeded to flatten it with all their firepower.

This disparity in the initial reaction is easy to account for. The punishment taken by the skeptics in the early years of the climate wars, had not destroyed them but instead produced a breed of hardy veterans, who dealt in cold realities, rather than hoped for illusions. The real difference between a veteran and an inexperienced soldier, is the former are careful while the latter are fearless.

From any rational viewpoint, Fakegate has turned out to be a disastrous event for the alarmists. When you’re patently losing a battle, you withdraw to conserve your forces to fight another day. Amazingly, they would rather battle on into a self-immolating quagmire of expensive litigation than simply admit they were wrong. It shows a childish petulance that plays exactly into the realist’s hands, who are clever enough to let them get on with it, needing nothing more than the odd prod to encourage their defiance. At some point in the not too distant future, the realists know the people who own those media outlets and employ those journalists, are going to get fed up of writing libel damage cheques to cover the self-righteous crusading of a few prima donna hacks.

When that happens, the remaining elements of the media supportive of the good ship global warming will jump overboard, leaving nobody but a few crazed political activists and bemused scientists on the burning deck. It was always doomed to end that way.

What should have been no more than a tactical loss, has now been mismanaged into a strategic disaster that continues to get bigger with every passing day.

I used to be able to predict what they’d do but that’s become impossible of late. All reason has fled. There’s a real feeling of April 1945, Berlin, der Fuhrerbunker and its mad occupants, barking unrealistic orders down phones and moving long ago destroyed units around on maps, as if it really meant something. It’s all basically becoming more and more hysterical and irrational.

It’s not quite over yet but we’ve beaten them and will have to be satisfied with that. The bitter pill for me, is that none of them will ever stand in a court of law to answer charges of crimes against humanity for the deaths, starvation and poverty that their policies inflicted on the poor around the world. We must now move to get those policies reversed.

These are good days and we should of course enjoy them. It’s round thirteen, there’s a few more to go but we’re now beating the bejesus out of them for a change.

©Pointman

UPDATE: There are simply too many comments on this article, here and elsewhere, for me to reply to individually. Instead, I try to address the bulk of them here.

Related articles by Pointman:

The Climate Wars revisited or No truce with kings.

I’m not a scientist but …

About these ads
Comments
117 Responses to “The Climate Wars.”
  1. Hybrid Web says:

    I wish that I could believe that this is the beginning of the end (let alone the end itself)…

    but, until the Obamas and the Camerons and the Merkels and Sarkozys of this world actually start changing policy in a large and meaningful way, I can’t believe that the big scare will pass.

    You’re right in one sense: none of them will ever stand trial or face any retribution. The best that we sceptics/realists can hope for is that the damaging effects will be limited.

    I’d be satisifed with a resumption in manned space exploration, using the funds that would have gone into the crazy green policies.

    • mlpinaus says:

      Agreed sir. The world needs something like that the Moon landings gave to my generation…. something out of the day to day. The fact that it also created the silicon world of now is another story

      Marcus

      • MarkW says:

        The NASA program had nothing to do with creating the silicon world. That was well on it’s way to being created before NASA was a dream in JFK’s eye. THe best that can be said, is that the money funneled into NASA helped to speed up the creation of the silicon world by a few months. But even back then, the money being spent by major corporations on computers dwarfed what NASA was spending.
        NASA did not drive miniaturization either. BUsiness necessity did that. Smaller components ran faster and used less power. Both things were important for their own sake, the fact that they were also lighter was an after thought, not the prime objective.

  2. meltemian says:

    Pointman, I hope you’re right and we are winning but I’m afraid the Climate Wars will just morph seamlessly into another scare, ‘Sustainability’ seems favourite. The usual suspects will slide gradually into the new religion without ever recanting.
    They will never be forced to admit they were wrong, but we’ll know, and they’ll know that we know,……that’s probably the best we can hope for.

    • Michael Hart says:

      Alas, meltemian, you may be right.
      There is a mindset that needs to be corrected. The list of false demons is endless. Currently it might be carbon dioxide, nuclear power, or plastic bags from supermarkets. But we know that the next ones will come from a long list of things that are also merely artefacts of the world we have built. Many advocates of this movement like to pretend that they have some special concern and understanding for the environment that the rest of us don’t have. They co-opt science to suit their pre-determined ends, when it suits them.

      I’ve spent much of my life not only studying science but also getting out and actually walking and climbing on the environment. In my experience the activists of environmentalism have a large measure of professed “concern” but precious little else that distinguishes them from the rest of us. What they do have, other than a desire to impose their will on others, is a few decades of experience of getting their own way.

      • PaulW says:

        …… “a few decades of getting their own way” …..

        You forgot to mention that they have more money than God.

    • Æthelwold of Wessex says:

      The battlefield is moving, “ocean acidification” is the fall-back position. CO2 is still the bogeyman, still the raison-d’etre for taxation.

    • Brian H says:

      Not altogether sure of that. The “world” has been sensitized to the pattern, and I think the lifecycles of the replacement scams will be exponentially shorter.

  3. laterite says:

    Thanks again Pointman for capturing the Zeitgist. I wonder, where to now for the AGW wounded? Like vets, expect nothing.

    I thought up an aphorism yesterday:

    “There is no such thing as progress – just damage and regrowth.”

  4. Anthony Watts says:

    I’ve made excerpts from your post Quote of the Week at WUWT – enjoy

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome to the blog Anthony. I’m sure you’ve heard it before but in the early days, your little Fort Apache of a blog, surrounded though it was by the armies of unreason, kept myself and a lot of other people going. Thank you.

      Pointman

  5. kim says:

    ,Distributed, guerilla, intelligence,
    =========================

  6. steven mosher says:

    Good work.
    I’ve said similiar things, but not with your eloquence.

    As a believer in AGW I’ve suggested that the right counter tactic is to co opt a few leading guerilla voices. It’ll never happen. My side sucks at this

    • Pointman says:

      Hi Steve and welcome. Sounds like you’re looking for an agent of disinformation. I’m your man. My rates are pretty reasonable (the same as that heroic dude above) but I’ll do it for the kicks.

      Pointman

  7. Jack says:

    Not working in Australia. They have a Climate Commission that travelled around Australia refusing to take questions from anyone who did not agree. They ran a Commission that refused to allow sceptics a hearing. The government has enacted a carbon tax at $23 per tonne. That is despite the failed Chicago Climate Exchange, the obvious failures of the European Exchange and various other schemes shut down. The sum effect of these exchanges on climate, nil. Effect on economies, catastrophic.

    • PaulW says:

      Jack,

      All you can do is to point out to all that will listen the consequences of the Carbon (dioxide) Tax.

      Main ones being:
      - Australia has the largest, economy wide tax in the world.
      - There will be no noticeable impact on the global environment
      - Everything made in Australia will cost more due to increased energy costs, transport costs and the resulting inflationary effect
      - In fact this tax will act as a negative tarriff where it punishes Australian manufacturers and subsides imports.
      - When it gets to full flight, we will not have reduced our emissions, but will be sending billions of dollars off shore to buy permits.

      Therefore
      - Manufacturing in Australia will decline (refer Alcoa, Blue Scope)
      - Our standard of living will drop as we will have less money – it is being sent off shore
      - If we have less money then; (This is where I agree with our host and get really ticked off)
      – Less money means less can be donated to charities (salvos, red cross…), less to research groups (cancel council…)We will eat out less, so restaurants, clubs, pubs will have declined patronage. Less disposable income means less DVD, TV sales. Less savings less into Super….

      By way of a simple example I have been pushing (simplified);
      A holden cruze will increase by say $400 due to the tax. When you go to buy a car you can chose the Cruze or an equivalent imported car. The government has promised to compensate you, so you have the $400 extra – so you can spend the $400 on the cruze, or buy the cheaper imported car and keep the $400 (you will need it for your healthcare). What, in the real world will folk do.
      This senario plays across all locally made products – so if you work in Oz manufacturing you are in for a rough ride.

      Then (seeing as I am on a roll) the economists tell us that if we are not efficient then the inefficient jobs should go and we should move to things we can do well, like mining and services. So all those people in manufacturing, on the production line are going to work in the mines, or become programmers and bankers……….

      You cannot introduce such a large, economy wide Tax, in the current global economic state without there being huge, negative consequences, let alone whether the government has the intellectual capacity to implement it without there being unintended (but obviously forseeable) consequences.

      Just to re-iterate. The folk promoting this course of action will be directly responsible for loss of jobs and the reduced financial support many of our voluntary social services receive. This will lead to hardships that the promotors will never have to answer for.

      • Jazza says:

        That is very well put.We Australians unfortunately have an incompetent and profligate government right now, one that is using taxes and class warfare to try to balance their budget.

        A carbon tax money-go-round will hep them do this.albeit temorarily
        .
        The hypocrisy of “saving the environment” is all a hoax,as everyone with half a brain and not a rusted on leftie voter knows the carbon tax will do NOTHING to stall or reduce Australia’s CO2 emissions..

        I have been concerned that nobody seems to be pointing out details too, such as

        …Those who will get compensation will be social security and low income earners.

        it will be a set amount or % eg, I think Old Age Pensioners will get an extra $10 per week.

        But the elephant in the room is that everyone must pay the going rate for all services and necessary goods,so this ‘compensation” is not going to make up the increases when everything we buy will come to us via a chain of manufacture, distribution, transport and retail,with the carbon tax on everybody’s production and the added GST on levels of the chain, which I see as a compounding increase down the line.

        To me there is no hope the treasury modelling will come within cooeee of the incremental increases in COL
        I think the poor will become a good deal poorer.

        That jobs will be killed due to companies moving offshore is a given
        How can it not occur when we are going to trash our competitive advantage of cheap and available power?

        Every single person i know is worried and hates the carbon tax and Labor and Greens politicians for implementing it!

    • Brian H says:

      On Tallbloke’s Talkshop:

      Bruce says:
      March 3, 2012 at 10:23 am

      I really fear for Australia. At least if everything goes tits up in the UK, we’ve still got culture to fall back on.

      :D

  8. N says:

    90% of the climate alarmists’ broad support always came from people who are in the market for fashionable opinions.

    Once ‘global warming’ activists came to be seen as dull dupes rather than members of some sort of chic ‘avant garde’, it was all over for global warming activism as a popular movement. The people who clothe themselves in popular opinions will quickly move on the next thing they and their friends can all agree about. As for the hard core devotees, it’s a case of ‘live by the adulation of casual hangers on, die by the slow withdrawal of same’. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

  9. NoIdea says:

    WAR TORN

    Battle lines have been drawn
    Steeped in lies, an enemy is born
    We can use the eloquence that they lack
    The truth our strongest weapon of attack

    The cold axe of reality will rip and tear
    Hydra headed demons of global fear
    With humour, wit and satire
    We can ridicule the ever warming matter

    NoIdea

  10. Jack Mackenzie says:

    Pointman, that is some damn fine writing!

  11. hillrjRichard Hill says:

    To Ross McKitrick and Pointman… Thank you for your well written article. But, I’m sorry to say it is too self congratulatory. This week there was a good political opportunity for the Australian Government to defer the pending Carbon Tax ($23 per ton, due to start in July this year). The Cabinat Minister in charge was able to say on national TV “every single scientific body in every country in the world supports…” [action against CO2]. Until you can get the RS, NAS, AGU,CSIRO,,, to change their tune you are losing your war. Do you think that there is much chance of that?

    • Brian H says:

      Those are shells, being hollowed out by the ratcheting opposition they create every time they open their mouths. (How’s that for a pot-pourri of metaphors?)

      Australia is somewhat retarded in this respect, but it is learning fast.

    • Don Simpson says:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203711104577199330965279516.html

      I think you have it nailed, however the above letter to the editor by the APS in which they clarify that there societies AGW statement does not mean that mans effect on the climate is incontrovertible. (In other words its up for debate)

      The problem is that co2 as a greenhouse gas is consistently thrown out as a straw man but the dramatic consequences of 3-10 degrees warming are lumped together. There is no science at all to support the dramatic side of AGW, this being the case there is no reason for any political action at all. Hopefully after more years of no increase in warming cooler heads will prevail.

      Great blog post BTW!

      • Brian H says:

        I doubt that atmospheric cooling will penetrate the heads in question. They’re heated by internal neuronal combustion.

  12. DBD says:

    “Dare to dream Billy. Dare to Dream”

    Mosh, you kill me!

  13. Bob Kutz says:

    You had me until the Fuhrerbunker reference.

    Some of them will, no doubt, stand accused in a court of justice.

    Some of them will be convicted of wrongdoing.

    Some of them are guilty of nothing more than honestly believing what they were told.

    None of them deserves to be accused in a court of law of crimes against humanity. Believing in something is not a crime, advocating for policies that have unintended and indirect consequences, foreseeable or otherwise, is not a crime. Their side has called for the persecution of ‘big oil’ CEO’s and entrepreneurs. Let us not fall into that trap.

    No one on their side is advocating for policies with the intention of harming the worlds most indigent and defenseless.

    Don’t get me wrong, I did like your article, but there are other problems with your analogy;

    I don’t think the 13th round has yet begun. We might be in the 6th or 7th round of this bout. And it’s not David vs. Goliath either, as tempting as that observation may be. We have humility and a desire to discover the truth on our side, they have arrogance and belief on theirs. The odds are not in their favor, no matter how fast and furious they come out of the blocks. The guerrilla warfare example however is accurate. The hidden strength of the guerrilla army is that it is frequently underestimated, and the central command structure is impossible to destroy, therefore it will never surrender. To compare such an army to David is to underestimate it’s strength.

    Let their side be shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods, even as they take ill-advised shots at our ‘big oil conspiracy against science’. Let them engage in legal tactics to thwart FOI requests. Let them wallow in government largess brought to them courtesy of political shamanism masquerading as science. Let them twist, manipulate and redact their data and their models. Let them contort their version of ‘truth’ to fit their ends.

    Meanwhile; let us be content to search for the truth. Let us study what the data has to tell us and discover what makes this rube goldberg device work as it does. As Jack Eddy put it; “Were God to give us, at last, the cable, or patch-cord that links the Sun to the Climate System it would have on the solar end a banana plug, and on the other, where it hooks into the Earth—in ways we don’t yet know—a Hydra-like tangle of multiple 24-pin parallel computer connectors. It is surely at this end of the problem where the greatest challenges lie.”

    We may be guerrilla, but we are not David. I prefer to think of it as a couple of million disciples of Eddy vs. Goliath.

    And please refer to the coming solar minimum as the ‘Eddy minimum’ so that when it comes time to give it a name, it may already have one.

    • Blackswan says:

      Bob: you say – “Believing in something is not a crime, advocating for policies that have unintended and indirect consequences, foreseeable or otherwise, is not a crime.”

      I beg to differ.

      It really is a crime to obtain money by deception, especially taxpayer dollars from hardworking people just trying to do their best for their families. For ‘scientists’ to falsify data to obtain multi-million dollar government grants is gross deception for financial advantage. For ‘scientists’ to conspire to having any dissenting scientific opinion quelled and prevent publication of their papers, their tenure terminated and their professional reputations trashed is, in my opinion, professional misconduct for which there must be some accountability.

      As for the many billions of dollars of our nations’ wealth to be siphoned off into these nonsensical projects on the basis of outright Fraud, what do you think they might have been spent on instead?

      Our crumbling transport infrastructure, no dams built in 50 years to harvest water for times of need, countless thousands unemployed and/or homeless, proper care for the aged and disabled, our Health Systems in chaos because they are starved of funding, massive bloated parasitic bureaucracies built on the basis of AGW fraud, rocketing fuel prices and sky-high energy bills – all to subsidise the folly of “renewable energy” scams.

      You suggest there is no criminal intent when it comes to “unintended and indirect consequences, foreseeable or otherwise” – well, you don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see that taxpayer funding is a finite resource and for politicians and banksters, ‘scientists’ and other carpetbaggers who have scrambled aboard the Climate Gravy Train, to divert public funding to their own advantage is unconscionable behaviour for which there must be some accountability.

      Even worse when our governments have now plunged us into generational sovereign debt to pay for it since the money ran out.

      Proving their ‘scientific theory’ to be wrong is one thing for our guerrilla army, the next objective must be to hold those culpable thieving conspirators to account.

      • Brian H says:

        Yes, and the corpses of the careers of those crushed for “dissent” cry out for justice from the grave. Lives have been ruined.

        Not to mention the mega-deaths from biofuel food price spiking. Mass indirect murder is still murder.

    • Brian H says:

      “No one on their side is advocating for policies with the intention of harming the worlds most indigent and defenseless.”
      Au contraire. The population reduction (by starvation, necessarily, since it would take far too many bullets) advocated by the UN and Greens is, by any sane definition, “harm”.

      The difference is whether you value the rationalizations more than the people.

  14. jaymam says:

    Thank you for your inspiring articles.

    “They are just so strong. What can you do?”
    I suggest that we continue to respond to alarmism wherever we see it, by posting replies to it. At least that keeps the warmists busy and they have less time for mischief elsewhere.
    The most extreme warmists can’t help reading about themselves. Mann and Gleick must spend much of the day reading the sceptic blogs. Let’s face it – they have nothing else better to do these days.

  15. Bob Kutz said “I don’t think the 13th round has yet begun. We might be in the 6th or 7th round of this bout. And it’s not David vs. Goliath either, as tempting as that observation may be.”

    Maybe Churchill had the right words (he so very often had).

    “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

    Sir Winston Churchill, speech in November 1942, following Axis powers defeat in the second battle of Alamein.

    In his extensive memoirs, written after the second world war, he wrote of that victory “Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat.”

    Possibly, just possibly, we may (or could, it’s a projection not a forecast, see IPCC ARx) be able to say, looking back to recent events “Before Fakegate we never had a victory. After Fakegate, we never had a defeat.”

    See my correct use of parentheses there? It proves I’m not Gleick or a troll, so no need for Capcha.

  16. Ed, 'Mr' Jones says:

    Speaking of Berlin, 1945.

    There are hundreds of these Parodies on various Topics, many of them very funny.

    Don’t let the first word in the title turn you away – the vehicle is a singularly Brilliant piece of acting that lends itself to such things ……..

  17. scott smith says:

    Very well written and insightful! I appreciate the WUWT heads up. It remains to be seen but it does appear like Gleik’s act was one of desparation, their Bulge or Stalingrad or D-Day. There can be little doubt, CO2 will continue to be studied and its role discussed, but I don’t think we will return to the full bore alarmism we have endured. Powerful forces still stand on their side, but they are beginning to crumble. How is it Henry V said it? “We few, we happy few! We band of brothers!” Keep movin’

  18. montjoie says:

    I’ll be bookmarking this site and coming back. I like your tactical sense.

  19. w.w.wygart says:

    Congratulations Pointman, you’re hitting the big time! Well done.

    However, I hear the ghost of Norman Maclean’s father calling to you from beyond the grave, “Again! Half as long!”

    I would have started with something like this, then just rolled.

    “The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at.” + “It becomes asymmetric warfare.” + “Fighting them with all your heart just isn’t good enough; you’ve got to fight them with your head as well.”

    I also think the whole opening pugilism episode doesn’t really doesn’t support your asymmetric/guerrilla warfare thesis [which I like to a qualified degree], and I found myself wading through it to get to the nub of your argument.

    I take it we’ve both fought bare knuckle. My experience is that fighting someone bigger and stronger than yourself toe to toe the damage you take early on in a fight will cost you the fight in the end, and rarely do you have enough ground that you can give ground for long [unless you are the USSR] without finding yourself backed into a corner or in another untenable position. The ground I would hate to see lost by realists is the moral and intellectual high ground that the alarmists seem to have abandoned as ‘inconvenient’.

    The reason I give a qualified ‘like’ to your guerrilla metaphor is that what must be remembered about guerrilla warfare [speaking as a former spec. ops. soldier], is that the guerrilla also fights outside of the restraints upon warfare that have been hashed out with such difficulty by civilized nations over centuries, which usually results in the general state of affairs to degenerate to the lowest common denominator – atrocities committed on both sides. You can take a look at the title bar of this blog as a reminder to what happens to a warrior who has lost sight of this fact. [what irony, I actually couldn't have thought of a better example myself]

    Your asymmetric warfare metaphor is the better metaphor, particularly, in your analysis of the skeptic/realist movement as being “diffuse” [I'm not seeing it now, did you use that term?] – diffuse – without a centralized structure, leadership, or hierarchy. We congregate at these electronic Litfaß columns, post our little messages, hang out, have conversations, then go back to what ever else we do all day. It’s very hard to attack, unless you manage to gain control of the whole internet. The alarmist mind cannot stand that, they are essential Sith, they want no opposition, and they want absolute control over everyone else’s thoughts, they can’t stand to be confronted with a competing idea, they can’t imagine someone disagreeing with their position unless they be: stupid, uninformed, or evil. Being essentially paranoid they require an equally paranoid opposition which is why Heartland, as tiny an institution as it is, draws so much enmity – as you pointed out.

    You also point out, correctly:

    From any rational viewpoint, Fakegate has turned out to be a disastrous event for the alarmists. When you’re patently losing a battle, you withdraw to conserve your forces to fight another day.

    However, as Spengler over at the Asia Times points out, “Across epochs and cultures, blood has flown in proportion inverse to hope of victory’. The Germans call it ‘Mut der Verzweiflung’ the courage born of desperation when victory is impossible but death is preferable to surrender. These people aren’t rational so we cannot expect rational behavior from them. They may actually prefer to risk go down in flames, even as Confederate soldiers could barely be compelled to surrender in April 1864, hoping that their position can be maintained in the end.

    Another point I would like to add to the discussion is that we ALL seem to be losing the fight, alarmist and realist alike, as a civil society. One side in particular seems to have split itself off psychologically from the rest of society so completely that they no longer feel it is even necessary to pretend to engage civilly to those whom they define as their enemies – and I’m talking about smart, highly educated professionals here, scientists, academics, journalists – people who look and act in every other way very much like you and me, they expect to simply be able to steamroll their opponents without reply. Their logic and hubris, have become so completely self-referential that they can now rationalize virtually any action as for the ‘greater good’ – and expect to get away with it in front of the only people whose opinions they actually care about, their fellow alarmists.

    Question is, will they get away with it in front of the courts? What will we do if the Gleikster does get away with it. We can expect worse if he does.

    The world wonders,

    W^3

  20. David C says:

    A superb post. Good analysis and beatifully written. Thanks.

  21. William Astley says:

    The science is unequivocally on the side of the skeptics. The planet’s feedback response to a change in temperature forcing (any forcing change) is to resist the forcing change (negative feedback) rather than positive (amplify forcing change). The planet’s atmosphere resists forcing changes (negative feedback) by an increase or decrease in planetary clouds particularly in the tropics which increases or decreases the amount of sunlight that is reflected into space.

    Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation changes Vs temperature changes clearly indicates that planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative. Actual measured warming is significantly less than that predicted by the IPCC. There has been no net warming for the last 10 years.

    If the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (resist changes by increasing or decreasing clouds particularly in the tropics) the amount of warming due to a doubling of CO2 be less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand. The warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases is positive, it will cause the biosphere to expand.

    Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Plants eat CO2. Plant yield increases and growing times decrease when atmospheric CO2 is increased. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and decrease growing times. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in cereal crop yields of roughly 30% to 40%.

    When atmospheric CO2 increases plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces the amount of water they lose to evaporation. When the atmospheric CO2 increases plants can make more effective use of water. (Another benefit due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.)

    http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm

    Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.

    Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers). Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

  22. Thanks Pointman even if I tend to agree with the comparison to el Alamein. Well, my part is probably close to Intelligence – nearly all of which was done of course behind the scenes, but led to such things as the “heroes of Telemark” who took out the heavy-water plant at Rjukan, and no doubt a great deal more if I were to inform myself of the now-available details.

    Two more heroes inspire me. Both became, in time, great kings.

    One is David. Not just against Goliath, but subsequently. Few people realize that Saul became so jealous of him that for several years was on the run and in hiding, even though he’d been anointed king… that’s what the Psalms are about, and that’s why they ricochet from despair to hope all the time.

    The other inspiration is our king Alfred rightly called the Great. He too was in hiding and on the run. I still choke in the throat when I recall his astounding story. He is my inspiration for the wiki I am still preparing behind the scenes (anyone interested in helping, please email me). He knew it was necessary to rebuild strategically. It was not enough to ambush W M C Guthrum the Dane, not enough to babysit warmists Guthrum through conversion totrue science Christianity. It was necessary to rebuild, strategically. Our UK counties originate from this time. Each county established a fortified county town from which no part in the shire was more than a day’s ride distant.

  23. colliemum says:

    Great essay – I like the various comparisons to fighting, because we tend to forget that sadly science has been utilised as an instrument of political warfare by the big climate bullies.

    The comparison to asymmetrical warfare is especially apt: we sceptics didn’t buy into the ‘settled’ AGW meme because we’re fascinated by science, we love learning from new papers which show again and again how observations made ‘in the wild’ do not support the clever models whose ‘projections’ look more and more like phantasy as time goes by.
    These are the little stings, comparable to the run-and-hide tactics, which will inflict more and more damage on the big bullies.

    I don’t know if we’ve had our Alamein yet. I think right now we’re like climbers roped together, climbing a highly difficult rock face. we can’t afford to look down or up quite yet – we must concentrate on finding the next hand grip, the next ledge where to put our feet, so that we can climb on. No celebrations yet – they can wait for the time when we finally stand on the peak.

  24. robert barclay says:

    Time for Occam’s razor. Once everybody gets their heads round the cocept that surface tension blocks heat the whole silly mess qickly unravels. The warmists say that heat from co2 heats the surface of the ocean increasing evaporation and adding to greenhouse gases. Not on this planet the ocean rejects heat due surface tension. No Venus event, no way

  25. Bob Kutz says:

    Blackswan; go back and read what I said again; some of them will be tried for their scientific fraud.

    But you cannot charge these people with crimes against humanity because the money was spent on majic beans instead of infratstructure. Our governement, chosen by the people, set the spening priorities.

    To charge them with ‘crimes against humanity’, as the author suggests, is directly akin to their (warmists) calls for persecutions against the CEO’s of Exxon and BP. It is wrong.

    If they’ve commited fraud (which I believe quite a few of them have) charge them with that crime and have a trial.

    To pitch the nefarious charge of ‘crimes against humanity’ is wrong and sets a terrible precedent for what constitutes such a crime. Promulgating for environmental legislation, no matter how misguided or self-interested it may be, is not akin to opening up death camps or commiting genocide.

    Stop making the argument that it is. It is not helpful.

    • Brian H says:

      Badly spelled concern trolling.

    • Blackswan says:

      Bob, I agree with you.

      If I was a Sydney motorist on a 2 hour commute stuck in grid-locked traffic because the transport system had collapsed due to lack of funding, that would definitely not constitute a crime against humanity.

      As I nervously look at the fuel gauge wondering if I my petrol will last me the week or we have enough money to pay the electricity bill or feed the family at the supermarket because a Carbon Dioxide Tax is driving us to the wall – true, that’s not exactly a crime against humanity.

      Yep, we have a government who introduced the tax, but they lied at the election and swore they’d never bring it in. “There will be NO carbon tax under a government I lead” said our duplicitous Prime Minister.

      But what if I was a peasant farmer in Baotou, China?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

      My once-fertile fields have disappeared beneath a lake of toxic sludge, my wife and two of my children have died, my neighbours are sick and cannot work. We are hungry. This refining of rare earth minerals for solar panels and wind turbines for mysterious foreigners in far countries is killing my beloved country and my people.

      I have no opportunity to elect my government who makes these decisions.

      What if I was a subsistence farmer in Africa working to grow cash crops for the West with barely enough to feed my family? Fields that once grew food for our people is now taken away and made into bio-fuel for foreigners. Why? What does it mean? The price of grain has become so high we cannot afford very much and I can’t afford to send my children to school because they must work in the fields with me.

      Maybe I’m a housewife in Cairo or Haiti and the price of grain for our bread is so high I cannot feed my children who are thin with bloated bellies. I have to fight in the streets to make sure I don’t go home empty-handed.

      THAT is a crime against humanity Bob. Think about it. Like ripples on a pond, the madness of Gangrene Policies has affected millions of people around the world in ways you couldn’t imagine.

      And all the while the Fat cats and carpetbaggers line their pockets – at OUR expense.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall–owns-seabed.html

      By the way Bob, there’s a little ‘Reply’ button at the bottom of this comment. Feel free to use it.

  26. Very good article. Thank you for putting your time into it.

  27. Pointman says:

    Hello all.

    I usually try to greet new posters as they arrive but the numbers on this piece make that impossible. The numbers are interesting. Mainly, they come from the quote of the week thing at Anthony’s via Ross but I think there’s something more at work. I try and write what I plainly see in front of me and the piece reflects that. But it also seems to have struck a chord with people. We are all indeed lone guerrilla fighters, doing our own thing, in our own way, for our own reasons, which is something the alarmists have never understood and is why we can’t be defeated.

    Let’s get back to the merciless chewing …

    Pointman

    • scott says:

      Pointman, I do think you are seeing more commenters because of this Gleik incident. It seems to have galvanized the skeptics and denialists with a common objective: the warmists are wrong and must be stopped. Truth in advertising, I am a skeptic in that I believe the climate is an equilibrium system where several factors are balancing each other out and because of that there are always changes in weather patterns and climate. There are cycles of the sun, vulcanism, el ninos, la ninas, shifts in the jet stream, etc etc, you get the point I am sure. The climate system has large and small factors to balance into the equations and somewhere in all of that, human activity has a place. But really that is not the issue. In an equilibrium system, the system is not some fragile window pane that shattersif the slightest pressuer is applied from a specific directed blow. An equilibrium system is resilient like a trampoline seeking to return to it’s normal rest state after pressure has been applied.

      I would say these warmists have forgotten or ignored that basic understanding of chemistry. One person mentioned Alamein. I think this has been their Alamein. Or if there are Eastern front buffs, Stalingrad. It shows how desparate warmists are becoming.

      • Jim says:

        Stalingrad is a good analogy. A an unnecessary attack, made for political reasons, by a confident and superior force, that should have resulted in a strategic victory, but one that eventually focussed on a few hundred yards of soil one side of a river, and became the turning point for the entire Eastern Front.

        Like the Blitzkrieg, AGW requires constant movement, constant advancing. More laws, more control of people and economies, more ‘research’, more ‘funding’, more conferences, more international agreements. Once the whole thing stops moving forward it atrophies. Defending what you have becomes harder. It is easier to slip back, to give up ground, because you have so much of it, than fight tooth and nail to keep every inch. And once the direction of travel changes from forward to reverse the war is ultimately lost. Just as the Russians were constantly in retreat prior to Stalingrad, and rarely off the advance afterwards, I suspect the Gleik affair, together with the Climategate email dumps, marks the high point of the AGW bubble.

        Thats not to say a lot of ‘blood’ will not be spilt between now and the final victory, as it certainly will. The vested interests will not dissolve without a hard fight out of pure self interest, ignoring those who are true believers in the science, as some are. It will take a generation to kill AGW, basically as long as it takes for those who have used it to rise through the State bureaucratic machine to finally retire. Younger Civil Servants will see which way the wind is blowing and will distance themselves from AGW, leaving their bosses to push on alone. When those bosses retire over the next 10-15 years, people untainted by the old thinking will quietly reverse the previous policies. Bureaucracies never do big public U turns. They just slowly change direction, and pretend the mistakes never happened.

        AGW will die with a whimper, not a bang.

      • Sadly, you are right Jim, bureaucracy will have to phase AGW out as people connected to it retire basically. It is unfortunate but we will see the slow fade at about the pace of one geologic time period into the next.

      • Pointman says:

        Hello Jim. Your idea of them having to keep up a forward momentum all the time is interesting. There certainly is a feeling that Climategate I and the no deal at Copenhagen gave them pause and they’ve been a bit lost ever since. Certainly, I think they’ve lost the initiative.

        Pointman

      • Jim says:

        Yes, Copenhagen was the ‘Tanks at the gates of Moscow’ event. The point of maximum advance, when victory was in their grasp, but just evaded them.

    • Pointman says:

      Hi Scott. I’m not sure I agree with the self-stabalising equilibrium idea in the long term. Have a read of this and let me know what your thoughts are.

      http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/the-steady-state-environment-delusion/

      Pointman

      • Hey Point, I think it is a good article and I would agree. I would suggest though, that equilibrium does not equal steady state, automatically. The feedback we often mention is an equilibrium response, in a non-steady-state equilibrium system. There are no fixed “perfect” settings, if you will. It’s like currency exchanges. We may feel a certain balance between currencies is the best but only for the existing conditions. The minute a new variable, even a single variable out of thousands, changes, the whole system reacts. There never is a “best scenerio” only constant shifts as cause leads to effect, shifting the system. I hope I am making sense.

      • Pointman says:

        Hi Lehaute and welcome. I think I understand. Something along the lines of when a system, in static or dynamic equilibrium, is peturbed, it’ll tend to move back towards an equilibrium state but not necessarily the same one as the original.

        The intent of the article was to show that what looks to us like an eternal changeless state, isn’t any such thing, when looked at in geological timescales.

        Pointman

      • scott says:

        Yep, I think we’re understanding each other there. That has been my theory since way back when I was a chem/physics student studying both static and dynamic equilibrium systems. In fact even the static systems only appear so because we look at the system and not individual molecules. But this is why I am a skeptic. I don’t believe they account for enough variables in their models, they are overly emphasizing one variable without knowing it’s true value within the system. And finally, we still question speed of light, gravitation and other long established theories centuries old. I cannot believe they got it so perfected in 30 years that it is completely settled and not subject to question. Do they have a finger on one variable? Yes. Is it the biggest/only variable worth considering? No.

      • Pointman says:

        Like you Scott, I’ve no confidence in the models. Not only do each of them come up with significantly differing results, but we simply don’t know enough about the elements in the problem domain, to model it anyway. Over and above that objection, what they’re trying to model are interacting non-linear complex systems, which by that definition, are inherently not predictable. Not only don’t we really understand clouds but we don’t even have the math to handle turbulence. Expressed in less formal terms –

        http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/the-seductiveness-of-models/

        Pointman

      • scott says:

        Post, that’s well written too! It raises the issues that cause me to reject models too. Actually I don’t reject them in total, but they only serve one, very limited use and these warmists try to stretch that use. As you say, it is seductive. The one place models are useful is in the hypothesis stage as in: “we have this hypothesis and this mathmatical model is the way to test it (basically just putting the hypothesis into two languages, one prose the other mathmatics). However, that is where a model’s usefulness ends really. From there a model is either provable and replicable in real world observation or it has to be re-formulated and with it the prose hypothesis. If it can’t be replicated in the real world without manipulation, then it fails. Warmists substitute the model for real world observations and manipulate the observations to fit the model. It’s like the models are a witch doctor’s kupi doll and they can manipulate them however they want to get the earth to “behave” the way they want.

      • Brian H says:

        Scott;
        Feynman warned long ago that the prettier the model, the greater the temptation to get sucked into treating it as (a) reality. So much more compliant and cleaner than things that go zap and boom!

      • scott says:

        Exactly Brian, why do the field research with all it’s unpredictable reality mess. Isn’t the AGW model pretty, no mud, no saw dust, no puddles of water around melted ice cores. And all done in the warmth and comfort of the lab or office, except of cource when you take the climate model with you to Cancun, Durban or Rio. No muss, no fuss.

  28. Michael Reed says:

    “The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at.” Projection is a key component of the progressive mindset: they always assume the other guy is just like them. Since they have huge government funding and green institutions on their side, the other guys must have giant fossil fuel industries on their side. So they attempt to expose the evil underpinnings of the bad guys, only to find Goliath is fighting David. Wonder how they will act now that they have proven to themselves that their worldview was all wrong?

    • scott says:

      Michael, it seems likely to me they will resort to a new meme: vast secret donor network. To disagree with progressivism is to be evil in their book. I was in a conversation with what I thought were some tolerant progressives while we discussed a totally unrelated topic: Palestine and Israel. They were in total agreement with me on Palestine’s right to exist until I said Israel has a right to exist too. I went from being smart and rational to being an ignorant fundamentalist pig-dog fascist (one guy’s exact phrase) in the span of 2 sentences.

      I see the “false set of books” meme showing up in comments now because they claim HI’s budget in those stolen documents was too small for the stuff they accomplish.

    • PaddikJ says:

      “Wonder how they will act now that they have proven to themselves that their worldview was all wrong?”

      No different. Not for a nanosecond will they admit to themselves that their worldview is faulty. I see all the time. The spin & churn & tell themselves that it’s because the Evil Conservatives control the media, or are better at “framing,”, etc. ad naus. It never enters their heads that the reason they keep losing in the court of public opinion is because they are just plain wrong.

      Occupying the moral high ground is just about their sole raison d’etre and they will protect it at all costs.

  29. Martin A says:

    metastasised »»» metamorphosed?

    Thought provoking essay. It’s still a mystery to me how we were all fast asleep during the years while the whole thing took root and became the greatest mass delusion of all time.

    “….the people who own those media outlets and employ those journalists, are going to get fed up of writing libel damage cheques to cover the self-righteous crusading of a few prima donna hacks.”

    Any news of the Tallbloke vs. Bin Laden case?

  30. drcrinum says:

    This is not exactly a science war — it is more of a religious war. Religions usually don’t disappear quickly — and religious wars sometimes last for centuries. Facts and reason mean little when compared to faith and “the cause”. The AGW zealots may slowly fall from political power but they will continue their quest until there is an unequivocal sign from the “temperature god” — such as a mini- or new ice age. Even should the latter occur, don’t expect many zealots to fall on their swords.

  31. Jimbojinx says:

    Excellent analogy !!! I think this battle is more akin to the Religious Wars of Europe. We have to recognize that many Warmista do not plan to keep prisoners- they espouse the “Magdeburg Quarter”. Michael Mann is the exemplar

  32. Tenuc says:

    Great summary of how we got to where we are today and that we are approaching the end-game. They needed to get a significant proportion of the public to believe in their lies for the scam to work and, as market research shows, they have clearly failed.

    The people behind the CAGW scam will now start to move more into asset protection mode. watch for a change of emphasis from the MSM, a quiet shuffle to the UN leadership and withdrawal of funding from climate change research and green energy tech companies. As for politicians, they will be the ones left to carry the can. They are, however, extendible as it is easy to find another bunch of greedy useful fools ready to use for the next push for global control.

    We all need to be vigilant to nip their future attempts at manipulation in the bud.

  33. Rosco says:

    If they ever get their way and achieve even 25 % “clean, green and sustainable” energy the result will be so chaotic that the population will rise up against it.

    They simply can’t win anyway because what they propose is ludicrous and strangely unsustainable – just like the whole theory.

  34. alexjc38 says:

    Another very good article, Pointman. This is a long game, and the war is not over yet (think of the length of time it took for eugenics to fall out of favour) but the signs are encouraging, at this moment.

    Based on past form, I think there will be more Gleickian episodes of desperation to come.

    “The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.” (Sun Tzu)

  35. phinniethewoo says:

    plants are a distinct CO2 sink as they eat CO2 this is the case independent from the photosynthesis complexes and proteins they have (many plants grow faster with more CO2 but that is another issue)

    Humankind should start modest terra farming by fertilising some of that 90% of the oceans that are sterile , always were as they lay outside currents that carry iron dust. Iron fertilisation (Australia is full of red dust) will cause algae to grow , plankton to eat algae , fish to eat plankton..
    All would reduce CO2

    Unfortunately the higher priority is to enrich UK estate lords by planting futile windmills

  36. phinniethewoo says:

    there are many points of reconciliation possible with people who care about pollution and indeed exhausting the planet.

    However the many climate fascists , all nested in the cosy corners of society from where they are used to preach at us, prefer wimmills.

    r&d in nuclear carries no thrust with the climate fascists although eg Thorium, LENR are promising. Many ideas no money there. The little money is for a few institutes where the red ticks have infiltrated and do what they are good at: nothing productive, nothing transparent, nothing competitive.

    Ocean farming is another

    Climate observation is important as is a risk calculation of other things that are coming to humanity: Volcanoes, Comet impacts and super novae.

    Super novae are the killing thing: if one happens too close by, 200 lightyears or less, all life is gone, and there have been periods when there was one every 20years in our milky way.
    There hasn’t been one since 1600, but they do occur at exhaustion of stars so they are all due.

  37. neill says:

    Great piece, Pointman, Not sure I agree they’re beat yet, cause this whole damn thing has been so crazy and long, who knows where the end is. Or whether, as someone commented, it’ll just morph into a new scare. They seem to be acting crazier by the day — desperation? All I know, we need to keep the shield wall strong and keep hacking away. Til it breaks open somewhere. There’ll probably be bad days ahead. But it will break. Maybe it has already.

  38. I’m going to blog on this Pointman. Well done, mate!

  39. Green Sand says:

    Hi Pointman,

    Stand tall and more power to your elbow, takes time and commitment to observe and comprehend the issue.

    Then how to translate the data in a way that gains the attention of the many? For that we need people with talent.

    We appreciate your talent, keep up the good work!

    From an old DT commenter

    Regards

    GS

    PS, its cold outside, I will throw a troll or two on the fire for you!

    • scott says:

      Red alert! Lol. Red alert! The replacement for climate change has been announced: ocean acidity highest level in 300 million years. The sequel to Climate Wars: Ocean acidity is killing the world. Entirely man made, well except for those cows and their flatulence, you know the villains, you know the mantras. Urgent! We may already be too late to save the earth but if we close all industry down, stop all fertilizing, reduce human population, redistribute all the corporate wealth. It just might work. Send all your money to: Green U! Our motto is “Chicks will dig our porsches!” Their website addy is http://we wontquittilwehaveitall.org. (please recognize I am having a little fun here, but also know they are printing articles about it and a few came out this weekend)

      • Jack says:

        Climate change is only a part of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 works through local councils with green funding. That is why the greens get elected and stuff up everything else in the shire. Remember, the council in Sydney that thought that banning and protesting a chocolate shop was their business because the propietor was Jewish. All part of Agenda 21, where the communists and ratbags in the UN dictate policy from 6 star hotels in New York.

  40. Ian L. McQueen says:

    I’d like to share your optimism, but today (Mar 3) we heard on Quirks and Quarks (CBC Radio 1) Dr. Richard Peltier of U of Toronto talking about climate “deniers” and the infallibility (my word) of climate models. He was just awarded the Herzberg Gold Medal (“Canada’s highest award for science”) and $1 million in funding for further research. He struck me as an unreconstituted warmist alarmist. As long as people like him are around and given air time and publicity (as is Q&Q every week), and as long as they are allowed unfettered use of the words “climate science” to mean what they want it to mean, it will be difficult to get climate facts through to the general public.

    The program can be heard at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2204890679

    IanM

  41. Owen Morgan says:

    Excellent article, wonderfully written. I have to agree, though, with the pessimists here, because pessimism is in my blood. The Virginia state judiciary has just concocted a bizarre defence for Michael Mann; I am not sure that the University of Virginia had even suggested that as a defence. When judges rack their brains to find an excuse to defend the indefensible, it’s premature to declare victory.

    “The referee is on their side too.”

    You were right to say it and it is still true. We have to create a climate in which judges no longer dare to endorse lies, in defiance of obvious truth and, above all, where governments which crawl to the “environmentalist” NGOs get crushed by the voters, who have to live with the real-world consequences of the greenie fantasies.

  42. Victor Eigen says:

    Wow, great essay! I’m punctuation-compulsive, but the writing was good enough to allow me to overlook the errors that might have been grating in a lesser missive. Thank you for giving me brief respite from that curse, and for a thoughtful and inspiring read.

  43. Edward. says:

    Metaphorically speaking P, ‘I feel your words’, your prose eloquent, provoking and all at once.

    The great thing about your writing, a wordsmith you are, if I may say so – it provides so much food for thought and isn’t that the art of polemic?

    Yes, indeed we face the ‘bigger battalions’ but ranged against them, righteous foes, with keener more questioning and probing minds.

    It’s dirty work in the Skirmishers, greatly do we need our strategists.

    Well said old friend.

    Edward.

  44. Bob TI says:

    Great piece again P

    But, as some other comments have said I think Round13 is bit optimistic, we still have to keep at them.

    Bob

  45. orkneylad says:

    Masterful job Pointman.

    Raisng ma’ glass
    OL

  46. Sound thinking and excellent writing, Mr Pointman; count me as another fan of yours. Found my way here by way of Anthony Watt’s WUWT, where a quote from this piece was featured. I already read through this and another article and plan to go through your other stuff.

    Your line that “the referee is on their side” needs to be inscribed in stone, lest we delude complacent asses and expect fairness or (snicker) mercy. With the gazillions that are behind the Warmista scam, with the careers and reputations riding on it, I suspect that no matter what they do…including murder in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded stadium in front of tv cameras…they will always be exonorated. Just watch, by next year The Heartland Institute saga will see Martyr Peter Gleick beatified to sainthood and Heartland fighting lawsuits and harrassment. In any case, it’s clear to all that this Internet thingie Gore invented is the source of their sorrows, and will be next on their target list…oh, wait…that’s already happening in Australia! Dang.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome to the blog Peter. Pretty soon, even before we finally get the global warming scam onto the junkheap, we’re going to have another fight on our hands to safeguard internet freedom.

      Pointman

      • Thank you, Pointman. I sure wish you and folks like you could write more, but we all have real kind of reality lives as well. Big Oil’s checks are still in the mail, I guess. Heck, I wish I had the discipline to put together and keep up a blog, but I think I make a better cheerleader and a waterboy, and I hope to start helping out you blogger types with illustrations and graphics now and then.

        As you remind us, we are all we got and we are effective because of our hard work, skills and brains. O yes, unless we fight for it, they’ll find ways to shut us down and I’m glad your piece got a good exposure at WUWT because the folks there tend to get involved mostly in the science, an important job to be sure, but sometimes at the expense of missing out a bit on the political threats. We all need to be a little more omnivorous.

        I mentioned the Aussies before and their battle right now. See http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/ …that one gives a good overview, and then there’s a great bloggger from Down Under I know you’ll get a hoot from, “The Bunyip,” a retired prof and a character at http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/ .

        Anyhow, thanks again for the good read and I look forward to more. G’night to you and yours.

  47. Randizzle says:

    Your article really needs to be posted in national papers around the world. I’m sending it to the National Post here in Canada where I live. People in your respective countries please do the same and to your local federal politician!

  48. neill says:

    Y’know, hafta say, this all sounds good. But they have the UN, the nations, academia and the media (in no particular order). So, I wouldn’t go start selling GE stock……

    Then again, who’d have foretold the USSR falling when it did…….

    • Rastech says:

      Once they lose us and our consent (which can be withdrawn at any time, not just at elections, which is something the EU is already starting to discover), they have nothing at all.

      There are only three fundamental forms of Government (Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monarchy/Dictatorship), all of which, unrestrained, inevitably destroy themselves due to their unavoidable, self destructive flaws (which is why a balanced Republic embodying all three, properly restrained, with each having no power, but all having their place secured by and subservient to the Rule of Law, is the only thing that works. “If the Law makes the King, then the King is subject to the Law”).

      Even systems of despotic and tyrannical oppression, such as the USSR, can not avoid the inevitable end, they can only delay it. That brilliant mind Hadrian, understood this all too clearly, and knew the Roman Empire could not survive, because it was unsustainable, and the unsustainable will end. So he embarked on a project to artificially extend its life (building walls on the boundaries, and settling experienced, retired soldiers, in farms close to those boundaries, for example). Unfortunately, this ‘can kicking’ probably made the final blow-up of Rome far bigger than necessary, and we got the Dark Ages as a result. Rome might have survived a natural contraction and renewal in its proper time, otherwise.

      The USSR did unfortunately well to delay the inevitable, for three score years and ten.

  49. Maurice@TheMount says:

    Question,,,,,If you had all the Empirical Scientific Evidence supporting AGW in one hand, and a cube of Sugar in the other hand, and you clapped, what would you have ?

    Answer…….Sweet Fanny Adams, Sweet FA or Sweet Nothings…take your pick.

  50. Kalashnikat says:

    Excellent writing clearly setting out excellent reasoning. As a Chemical Engineer, I studied Transport Phenomena and process modelling in college, and have been trying to point out the obvious manipulation and deliberate ignoring of “inconvenient” data on the various feedbacks in the unsettled science of Catastrophic climate change…your work is among the clearest describing the psychology and politics of the catastrophists…

    I’ll be back for more of your blog.

  51. How the **** is anyone with poor eyesight meant to be able to read this? Tiny typeface (ok, I can enlarge it, but…), but worse, it is on pale grey on a white background. There’s a reason books are printed in BLACK and white – it’s so we can READ them.

    Anyway, Dellers linked to you, so I shall copy and paste what I suspect is an excellent article into Word doc, bigulate it and make the typeface BLACK so that my 60 year old eyes can read it – bit wouldn’t it have been great if I could just have read it here, instead of having to twaddle about as above?

  52. Even though I couldn’t read it here (!), this article is spot on. I was a default believer (scientists wouldn’t lie, would they? Would they?) until the language of the Monbiots of this world started to worry me – why so crazy, why so angry with those who – simply – beg to differ. Stumbling across the sceptic blogs, and seeing the fantastic work done by Steve McIntyre moved me to scepticism, made full blown by the Hockey Stick & CG1.

    I’ve lost an old friend as a result of this. He would spout the “97%” mantras, get angry whenever I pointed out that reality and AGW were separating at the speed light. Finally he was insufferably rude to me, so I ended our 10 years or so of friendship.

    The truth hurts those who deny it. Tip of the hat to the bloggers who to all intents and purposes have holed the Bad Ship AGW under the waterline.

    Great article.

  53. Great article Pointman. To my shame, although I have read your articles from time to time, you were not on my daily RSS feed.

    Now duly corrected.

    Keep blogging sir!

  54. nano pope says:

    Unfortunately it’s far too early to celebrate. They still wield all the powerful weapons while all we have is a murmur of a voice slowly but steadily rising in volume. We still have no real weapons to smash their insane policies, and as an Australian I can guarantee that they are insane. We need a political force, a fierce target that they thought Heartland was. Guerilla warfare is unsustaniable in the very long term and they’ve had decades to entrench their positions. Already there are moves to shut down what little voice we have. Keep fighting the good fight my friend, and I hope we can reach everyone before we are set on the road to ruin.

  55. durango12 says:

    Pointman is right on. As with George Washington’s revolutionary army, you win by staying in the campaign.

  56. Rastech says:

    Very nicely put Pointman. I echo your gratitude above to Anthony Watts too. Many thanks Anthony, keep up the good work.

    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
    George Orwell

    The truth is eternal victor, that cannot be defeated, other than temporarily.

    The biggest problem the warmists have, is their playbook, which is strict, unalterably rigid beyond sanity, and which cannot survive the truth.

    What people perhaps are not aware of, is how widely, and in so many areas of our lives, this very same playbook is used.

    But once you have seen it exposed in the light of day, in its full shabby, disgraceful, insane horror, you will recognise it wherever and whenever you come across it after.

    I have come across it in far too much that emanates from the United Nations. Also in other areas.

    This is indeed the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end, and we have a long ways to go yet, before we see the end of these anti-human forces.

    This is why I personally am now spending as much time as I can, helping to ensure that a victory itself isn’t turned against humanity (make no mistake, there is expertise in the wings waiting for precisely this opportunity to exploit, by those that rush to the front of the public procession), and explaining sane options that work, that our ancestors strove so hard for so long, to establish.

    Insanity always ends, but it doesn’t always end well.

    Keep on, keeping on.

    • Brian H says:

      “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
      George Orwell

      The truth is eternal victor, that cannot be defeated, other than temporarily.

      Odd juxtaposition. Orwell’s warning was that The Lie may very well win: the studded boot, stomping forever on a human face.

  57. fenbeagleblog says:

    Good blog Pointman…..But you are in danger of over-stretching and loosing balance. There is more to this yet.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome to the blog Fen. I take your point and certainly, it’s been raised by others in the comments on this piece. I’ll be replying to it and other observations in next week’s piece.

      Pointman

  58. Otter says:

    I suspect with your eloquence, that your blog may well join WUWT in the top ranks.

  59. NoIdea says:

    Based on T S Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)

    The Hidden Men (2012)

    The Truth – he gone

    Sing a song of sixpence

    I

    They are the hidden men
    They are the shallow men
    Whispering together
    Mouth full of straw-men. Alas!
    Those dread screams, when
    They’re conspicuous together
    Models wrong and meaningless
    As floods in dry droughts
    Or fat cats’ fees for broken graphs
    In our wet hell here
    Lies without reason, green without colour,
    Parasitic farce, genocide without emotion;
    Those who are crass
    With dark phobic lies, a snake in the kingdom
    Remember them – if at all – as lost
    Variable sold, but only
    As the hidden men
    The shallow men.

    II

    Lies dealt in mares shared as dreams
    Within the dark snake’s kingdom
    They ever do appear:
    There the lies are
    Sunlight dismissed in a broken column
    There, a single tree swinging
    And virtually are
    Of the heated singing
    More often and more common
    Than a falling star
    Let them be no nearer
    To the dream of death’s own kingdom
    Let them also tear
    Asunder loose disguises
    Tarts’ skirts, dunces’ cap, cross staves
    In a field
    Misbehaving with wind breaks
    No Nearer -
    Now the focal meeting
    In the tedium continuum

    III

    This is the drought land
    This is peyote land
    Then the stolen images
    Are forged, here they receive
    The intimidation of a dead man’s feet
    Over the terror of a failing star
    It is like this
    The green death’s kingdom
    Walking alone
    On the day that we are
    Transfixed with truthfulness
    Lisps between wooden kisses
    Forum players no broken bones

    IV

    The lies are all there
    There are no eyes there
    In the hidden cabal of hot stars
    The broken jaw of the new religion
    In this first of thinking places
    They grope together
    And avoid free speech
    Garnered under the banner of a humid river
    Soulless, unless
    The ayes reappear
    Within perception starts
    Multifarious risen
    On faith’s dread religion
    The hope only
    Of hidden men.

    V

    Four and twenty black facts, buried in a lie
    When the stick was broken
    Then the birds began to fly
    And wasn’t that a dirty line to sing.
    Between the bad idea
    And the banal reality
    Between the notion
    And the facts
    Fails in shadow
    For thine is the religious
    Between the contraception
    And the abortion
    between the commotion
    And the lame response
    Flails the shadow
    Evil is very wrong
    Thence the desire
    And into the spasm
    Beyond pure potency
    And the exactness
    Between the model essence
    and the vile descent
    Falls the shadow
    For thine is the religiosity
    For thine is
    Lies is
    Forthright is the
    This is the way the scam ends
    This is the way the hoax ends
    This is the way their world ends
    Not with a hot bang but a whimper.

    THE END?

    NoIdea

  60. John Kosowski says:

    As I look through the different sites advocating AGW alarmism I see quite a similarity to the “flat earthers.” The flat earthers have come up with a very detailed alternate reality theory. It is actually quite impressive although I imagine that it is just some kind of hobby of logical discussion. The people on the site are quite clever and very skilled at logical reasoning. Flat earth fails, of course, but the average person might have a pretty hard time proving it on their forum.

    Like AGW, they start with a theory and then create a complete set of rules and explanations that fit our perceptions into their reality just like the AGW models do. The flat earthers actually have a much better explanation of gravity than we do. Their theory is that the earth is a cylinder, and all that we know is the top of the cylinder. The cylinder is accelerating upwards continually at 9.8 m/s^2. That is why we feel gravity. Like Skeptical Science, they have “debunked” each individual criticism of their theory. Each individual explanation is very logically crafted to match our perceptions and their theory. So, if it weren’t so obviously clear that the earth is not flat, one might be persuaded by their logic.

    I think that is why Skeptical Science doesn’t spend much time proving AGW, but rather “debunking” the “deniers.”

    The flat earthers, however, are more willing to actually debate their theory and don’t just sensor the opposition the way Skeptical Science does. The flat earthers, I think, are in it for the debate, not the ultimate “belief,” so they aren’t threatened by the “deniers” the way SkS is. The flat earthers welcome opposition so that they can challenge their wit.

    It is because their entire theory is wrapped up as follows:

    1. We are experiencing unusual warming.
    2. Models created by AGW believers show that the warming is due to CO2.
    3. We have no other explanation for the recent warming.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome John. I sometimes think discussing the science with them is a futile activity. It soon becomes obvious that you’re dealing with a belief system, which simply uses theories and models which are not falsifiable.

      Pointman

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/ Rate this: Share this:TwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Quote of the Week and tagged climate change, Guerrilla warfare, Organizations, Pointman, Science in Society, Skeptical Inquiry, Skepticism. Bookmark the permalink. ← Friday Funny – pandemonium [...]

  2. [...] http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/ Share this:ShareDiggEmailRedditPrintStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  3. [...] has another interesting post up at his blog today The Climate Wars which is starting to draw attention from some of the heavy hitters of the shorter wavelength end of [...]

  4. [...]     Every one of the skeptics was a lone volunteer guerrilla fighter, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some massive hidden organization orchestrating the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that only existed in their head, each of the guerrillas chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way. full article here [...]

  5. [...] Bishop Hill for this Climate Wars essay by [...]

  6. [...] Complete article Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Anagnorisis — Change from ignorance to knowledge.Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment [...]

  7. [...] climate sceptical blogger called Pointman has written a superb post on the subject(which is well worth reading in full). The enemy – [...]

  8. [...] I’m not the only one to have noticed. A climate sceptical blogger called Pointman has written a superb post on the subject(which is well worth reading in full). The enemy – that’s the alarmists who’ve [...]



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

%d bloggers like this: