Among the Intellectualoids
Global Warmists Feel a Chilly Wind
Frauds and parasites generally do.
Two weeks ago I wrote an article here about global warming and the advocates -- call them warmists -- who tamper with Wikipedia to reflect their own biases. One warmist named William Connolley, a green ideologue in Britain, had rewritten 5,428 climate articles. His goal was to bring the articles into line with Green Party dogma.
A number of people responded, some taking the position that Wikipedia is a waste of time so why bother with it? But that is not satisfactory. Here is a better response, from Howard Hayden, a friend of mine. He puts out The Energy Advocate, a newsletter that raises many doubts about global warming and related energy issues. "Wiki is a great source of non-controversial information," he told me. "It's a shame it has been hijacked by true believers."
I agree. I find Wikipedia useful and I do use it. But I avoid it where science and controversy interact -- global warming, biodiversity, intelligent design, and a few other issues. There, Wiki cannot be relied upon. Political activists have enough time on their hands to make changes that suit their tastes.
I contacted Michael Fumento, a science writer who often endorses non-consensus positions. (He has done good work lately in drawing attention to the scare tactics of the "flu-pandemic" promoters; and, earlier, in questioning "AIDS" in Africa. It can be diagnosed there without an HIV test.) Fumento wrote:
The Wiki thing is highly problematic and Wikipedia has expressly been a thorn in my side. Problem is that despite what you hear, wikis are NOT self-correcting. They're last-person "correcting." If under the World Series entry on Wikipedia I write that the 2009 Series was won by the Cubs, that's what the entry says unless and until somebody else fixes it. Then I can go right back and change it. In short, wikis favor those with the most time on their hands -- a testament to the expression about idle hands…
As to those with time on their hands, the warmist activists often work for a website called RealClimate.org. Could they disclose the source of their funding? I keep hearing rumors that George Soros is among them. Global warming skeptics are likely to find themselves accused of being in the pay of oil companies. Could we get a clearer picture of who is paying the warmists? Come to think of it, lots of government grants no doubt go in their direction. Lately the Wikipedia entries on "global warming" and "climate change" have been "locked," which I guess means that the "warmist" position has been locked in, too.
I spoke to Fred Singer and Cato's Patrick Michaels recently. Both were once at the University of Virginia, along with that eager climate-grant go-getter, Michael Mann. Singer, a long-time skeptic, views the case for global warming as junk-science pure and simple. Satellite data disprove it. He also points out that a hundred interacting variables must be disentangled before we can conclude that humans have caused any warming at all. But that work has not been done and probably never will be because it is too complex.
One underlying problem: The advocates who decided to exploit the prestige of science and proclaim global warming a reality got into this field about a decade ahead of the skeptics. So they had the field to themselves for a long time.
The Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell points out that this is not the first time that ideologues have used science to boost their cause. Karl Marx pretended to be scientific and socialism was once called "scientific socialism." It was nonsense from the beginning, yet intellectuals the world over fell for it. The academic field of Political Science today is probably nine parts politics and one part science.
I met George Will at a Washington event recently and congratulated him on having sided with the skeptics. He did so before the Climategate emails were leaked, too. It was freezing cold outside -- as it has been for the last month in Washington -- and Will said maybe Mother Nature will come to our rescue.
What is so striking about the old appeal to "science" by the socialists and those who appeal to it today is that both have identical goals. In proclaiming ours to be an era of man-made environmental degradation and ruin, the warmists make us suspicious even without having to look at the science. We see that they aim to put us right back where the "scientific socialists" wanted: Under government control.
The nice thing about calling yourself green is that you can henceforth consider yourself morally superior to the middle class -- to the rest of us. You want to get us out of our cars and into mass transit, to use only the electricity that wind turbines and photo-voltaics can produce, and to pay higher taxes because you know how to spend the money better than we do.
Some of the reporters in this field are worth studying. Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post has come under scrutiny because her husband works for a group that regards global warming as a crisis. De facto, that is her position, too, even though she says there is a wall of separation between her and her husband.
Nonetheless, she writes lots of articles about what must be done about global warming, the premise being that humans caused it. "The science is settled," in other words. Think what would be entailed if she were to decide that human-caused global warming is a fiction. She would be writing herself out of a job. Her bias is evident not in what she advocates but in those whom she chooses to quote.
Marc Morano -- the "Drudge of the climate-denialists," says Rolling Stone -- runs a widely read and recommended website called Climate Depot. He points out that the most biased reporter in the field these days is the AP's Seth Borenstein. Morano has also had the New York Times's Andrew Revkin in his sights. Rush Limbaugh also attacked him and I see that Revkin has now moved on from the NYT to "an academic position." He puts out a blog called Dot Earth and it will be interesting to see how free of bias that is.
About the Author
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (90) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Tom Bethell
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/14/global-warmists-feel-a-chilly
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 1.14.10 @ 7:17AM
Man-caused global warming.
Cap and trade.
Health care "reform".
Welfare.
It's all about control. It's the underlying belief by some that they are superior to everyone else and that the "unwashed masses" must have their daily lives closely regulated and controlled. The belief that "it's for their own good" and that, to be blunt, you are too stupid to run your own life and take responsibility for your decisions.
Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 11:01AM
I fail to see how that connects. People are trying what they believe is best, either way.
But either way, whether excessive CO2 causes significant warming or not, it's still bad for you and the environment.
http://www.miamiherald.com/201.....ceans.html
Ret. Marine| 1.14.10 @ 7:18AM
To try to suggest a line of truth to these idiots is indeed less fortunate to the laws of nature. Remember these are idiots educated to the point of being stupid and they do it off the public dole and self interest. Stop their funding and where are they, well right in the unemployment lines with 17% of the population, right where they belong, but not the workers who actually make a contribution to society. Liberalism is a mental disorder. May I make a suggestion to the author, you give them too much exposure, please stop giving them aid and comfort by writting about them. I am sure you have better subjects to converse about.
Conan the Grammarian| 1.14.10 @ 3:54PM
I very like your comment . . . and your femail christian shoes. Perhaps if we all wore these special, beautiful shoes, we wouldn't have global warming/climate change. Now, click your heels together and say, "There's no place like home . . ."
Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 1.14.10 @ 8:05AM
Mr Bethell,
A few of us have been mocking the nonsense and having some fun with it. Hey, a crisis is too import ant to let it go to waste!
Eric Rasmusen| 1.14.10 @ 9:32AM
SOmeone found that RealClimate's website is registered to a 60's-radical connected public relations firm. If you want to know more, email me and I'll look the connection up. Some other commentor may have a link at his fingertips, tho.
Tom Bethell| 1.14.10 @ 11:43AM
Thanks Eric. Could you send you email to the American Spectator and then I'll get it from them. It's time we all began to focus more on the funds that are made available to the warmists and scare mongers. Most comes from the taxpayers, of course.
Ole Sandberg| 1.14.10 @ 12:01PM
RealClimate's website is operated by Fenton Communications, notorious as the organization orchestrating a number of fabricated environmental scares, including the Alar hoax.
Wicked Dickie-Virginia| 1.14.10 @ 11:16AM
I was raised during the Depression and my parents were simple peasants scratching out a living in the wilds of Philadelphia. Somehow, they always found money for a daily newspaper. Since the Inquirer was held to be Republican by my diehard Democrat Father, we took the Evening Bulletin. (I lobbied for The Record on Sundays as I thought it had the best funnies. Which, BTW were funny, even educational in those days.) So, imagine my outrage when I finally realized that these "journalists", their editors, et al whom I trusted are so contemptible. They have betrayed what I consider to be their sacred duty--find the news, report it and leave out the horse manure.
Ned| 1.14.10 @ 11:41AM
Why is there so much controversy about the scientific research on "global warming" now referred to as "climate change?
I think one of the main reasons I don't buy it is that every solution for global warming aligns itself with the mantra the left or liberals have been trying to push off on everyone for decades. It is just a little too convenient for their agenda. I wonder if the "Warmers" (I like Warmers more than Warmists) would be so zealous in their beliefs if the solution opposed everything they supported.
Would they believe me if I told them that a visitor from Mars had landed in my backyard and told me that unless everyone on earth converted to my beliefs he, it, would return and destroy the planet in say, 10,20, or even 50 years?
I could even throw in some scratchy recordings of the extraterrestrial warnings and perhaps a few grainy black and white photos as evidence. If I had the political power I could steer grant money towards scientists who would back up my claims of a visit. Then if it caught on I could convince the U.N. there were bucco bucks in store for them if they jumped on the band wagon.
Pittsburgh Pete| 1.14.10 @ 12:13PM
The warmists are the true 'bitter-clingers' in society.
PacRim Jim| 1.14.10 @ 12:38PM
Thank the U.S. taxpayer for funding the Internet, where the gatekeepers are diluted to irrelevance.
Dean| 1.14.10 @ 1:57PM
I would love to see Al Gore evicted from his Nashville mansion and forced to spend the rest of his life in a backwoods cabin similar to that in which the Unabomber wrote his anti-technology rants. It would be appropriate punishment for a life of fraud and greed.
Ned| 1.15.10 @ 6:39AM
His manifesto could be published under the name of "UnaGore". And the cabin could be chinked with his company’s carbon credit certificates.
Bob| 1.15.10 @ 5:17PM
That would, in fact, be a very green lifestyle that he should enjoy.
Marc Jeric| 1.14.10 @ 3:16PM
Some perspective on the far-left climate "scientists" - government-funded, mostly rejects of private enterprise:
1) Globaloney cooling scam in the 1970's;
2) Globaloney warming hoax of the 1990's;
3) Climate change flimflam of the 2000's;
4) Csap™ power grab now.
All of these panics called for world government take-over of private companies, under the "scientific" direction of our eco-nazi death cultists.
Marc Jeric| 1.14.10 @ 3:18PM
I wrote above "cap & trade" and somehow it got miss-spelled.
Michael F.| 1.14.10 @ 5:09PM
Well, Wiki is good for the non-controversial basics of a subject. As for the controversial, I once search Georg Soros there. Amazing. I doubt any of you know that Georg, in terms of his worldwide philanthropy, is right up there with... well, he's a Saint, he is, and is surely next in line for appropriate reward from our Green Pope. Or will that be a Nobel prize? Or both?
The Marxists have hijacked everything except conservative opinion...
danny bloom| 1.14.10 @ 8:24PM
North to Alaska: Sarah Palin’s Home State to House “Northern White House” Climate Refugees Will Flood the 49th State as U.S. Government Moves NorthIf the predictions of British scientist James Lovelock are any guide to the future, climate change and global warming are unstoppable now, and the next 500 years will bring major changes to life on Earth as we know it now. Billions of people from central and temperate regions will move north, Lovelock says, finding refuge in climate refuges known as polar cities in Alaska and Canada. Ton, google "polar cities" if you want to see the future. You prob do not dare. I dare you t0 look!
Jack Simmons| 1.15.10 @ 8:29AM
Lovelock's predictions are not any sort of guide for the future.
Alaska will continue to be the isolated refuge of black flies and mosquitoes.
richardk| 1.15.10 @ 1:20PM
At the 1975 "Endangered Atmosphere" Conference, considered to be the starting meeting of the 'anthropogenic global warming' (AGW) agenda, Lovelock [inventor of the Gaia thesis] forecast: "Before the century is over, billions of us will die..." as a result of AGW. In fact there has been no warming from any source in 9-10 years, and billions have not died.
So, investing in Arctic tundra may not be a wise move.
Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 10:23PM
In the News – 01/14/2010 « Rainy Skies links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PCP Smoker| 1.14.10 @ 10:31PM
Good piece, but Limbaugh did not attack him. Rivkin's desire was for people to limit themselves to 1 child only. He floated a "baby-avoidance carbon credit" idea.
Rush merely recommended AR followed his own advice: "Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?"
Sound advice for some proto-nazi advocating the systemic reduction of humans.
VJay912| 1.14.10 @ 11:58PM
I never use Wikipedia for anything! It is laughable that anybody would stake their sources on it. When I see "Wikipedia" the red flags go up.
Joe Discordia| 1.15.10 @ 1:08AM
I think the problem is with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. In order to resolve disputes between editors, Wikipedia insists on citing peer-reviewed journals, academic papers, secondary sources published by university presses and other third party sources that have a reputation for "fact"-checking and "accuracy." With all those advanced degrees and knowledge, what the hell do those sources know? Common sense trumps any peer-reviewed crap any day of the week and my common sense tells me that humans can't possibly hurt the planet!
Don't these ivory high tower intellectuals understand that the best information on science is from conservative blogs/radio hosts, Fox News commentators and magazines like the Spectator? Don't they understand that one rouge scientist who happens to be a free thinker and goes against 90% of working scientists to say the global warming is a lot of hot air, is a HELL of a lot more credible than anything else? Don't they understand that their own liberal bias is fed by data obtained from their so-called experiments?
This whole climate thing is a 150 year-long conspiracy: Those 19th century photos of glaciers showing how big the glaciers used to be are all faked!!!! Also faked are all the info on temperature for the same amount of time and the so-called "fact" that CO2 somehow traps heat. I mean really, 19 lbs of CO2 released for each gallon of gasoline? Who makes up these numbers? Oh, and those NASA photos showing the breakup of thousand-year-old ice flows the size of small states; faked. Measurements on ocean acidification by CO2; bogus. Data from chemists showing that the "excess" CO2 in air is from a type of carbon found in fossil fuels but not made by living things; junk science! Tree ring data; faked to show trends that appear to track with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Gas trapped in glacial ice cores; altered to show a rise in CO2. I bet these conspirators have also altered history books over the last 200 years to brainwash our kids into thinking that it was not possible until just recently to sail the Northwest Passage in summer. How convenient!
All this has been altered or outright FAKED over the decades by the biggest liberal conspiracy ever involving tens of thousands of people just to show that humans are somehow hurting the Earth so researchers can line their pockets with TAX funded grants. F all this science junk and let common sense rule!
David| 1.15.10 @ 5:00AM
Sorry Joe if you want to have an opinion on this subject you are going to have to make more effort to understand the facts.
1) Glaciers have indeed been melting for 150 years. CO2 has only been rising for 30. So why is CO2 the issue?
2) Ice floes come and go. The summer extent of Arctic sea ice is only 35-45% of the winter levels
3) Tree ring data has been shown not to fit current observed temperatures. This means that either the observations have been fiddled (as it happens, they have) or that tree rings are not a useful proxy for historic or prehistoric temperatures, or indeed both.
4) Gas trapped in ice cores: potentially an accurate way of reconstructing paleo climate but obviously only reflects local temperatures and loses effectiveness when extrapolated to global climate.
Anything else you need to know about?
Ray| 1.15.10 @ 12:18PM
David, glaciers have been melting for tens thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years. Those glaciers have been feeding many of the worlds rivers, and these rivers don't carve out their rather extensive glaciers in just 150 years. That type of erosion takes a long time. So, why is glaciers melting the issue?
The CO2 in glaciers poorly represent local levels, but those levels vary in each core sample, even cores taken just a few hundred yards apart. This is because compacted snow is not a very good indicator of current atmospheric content. There's too many variables in how the compacted snow "traps" the air, with local variations in yearly accumulated snow depth and wind and temperature fluctuations of ice flows, once again due to to geography (including th geography of the ice flows themselves), to accurately measure past atmospheric content in trapped gasses as the composition of the gasses change in the ice over time to the point where they no longer represent the atmospheric content at the time they were "trapped."
Joe| 1.16.10 @ 9:18PM
David - I guess my sarcasm was too thick and I apologize for that. In fact, CO2 has been rising since around 1750 and has risen a total of about 25% since the start of the Industrial Revolution; such a high level has not occurred in at least 800,000 years. Ice cores are important in this regard due to having trapped bubbles of air in them. They therefore have a direct measure of CO2 concentration for the last 800,000 years (the age of the oldest ice core layers bored so far). We know from current CO2 measurements that there is rapid mixing of gases in the atmosphere. Thus the CO2 found in the ice core bubbles most certainly are valid globally.
Further, the physics of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is clear and was first measured by Irish physicist John Tyndall in 1859. Also clear is that humans are pumping a huge net* amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ; some 15 billion tons a year (another 10 or so billion tons is absorbed by the ocean, which is getting more acidic as a result). The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is confirmed by ice core data and tracks well with direct air measurements since ~1950. *Natural sources of CO2 are balanced by natural CO2 sinks.
To say that decades of data from thousands of temperature measuring stations has been "fiddled with" is a strong accusation that requires strong proof. Both the Associated Press and FactCheck.org have examined the emails you are likely thinking about and did not find any evidence of faking the science. The American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all looked at the emails and have re-affirmed their stances on climate change; that human activity is the primary cause for global warming. More in-depth investigations are ongoing.
Tree ring data have diverged from direct temperature measurements since about 1960, true. Finding out why is an active area of research but two good candidates are warming-induced drought and global dimming from aerosols.
The Larsen B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula had been stable for at least 10,000 years before it broke up in 2002. Historic photos and sketches of glaciers have shown a dramatic decline in extent and volume since 1850. The first commercial ship to navigate the Northwest Passage did so in 2008. Many more are planned as the ice thins more. Also planned is, ironically, more oil exploration of the Arctic ice thins.
Arguments about what to do about climate change are perfectly valid even when those arguing agree that it is in fact happening and is mostly caused by human activity. Let's not ignore the science just because we may not like the *assumed* policy implications.
Rich| 1.15.10 @ 1:49AM
The decade from 2000-2009 is the warmest decade ever recorded:
http://how-it-looks.blogspot.c.....pause.html
Ray| 1.15.10 @ 12:27PM
No, it isn't. The warmest decade (actually several decades) "on record" occurred during the Medieval Warming Period when the average temperature in Europe rose to such levels that England, a rather cool Island, was able, for the first and last time in Human History, to grow large grape crops and make wine, something the the French Winemakers of the time bitterly complained about as it drastically affected their wine export business and they lost a lot of money. For a comparison of the temperatures of Europe of the Medieval Warming Period and today, I suggest you try to grow enough grapes in England and make enough wine to supply a million people, which is about how many people lived in England back when they were warm enough to produce yearly wine stocks. Let me know how much money you lose in this foolish endeavor, ok?
Scottish Janet| 1.16.10 @ 11:10AM
"England, a rather cool Island, was able, for the first and last time in Human History, to grow large grape crops and make wine"
Not true, sorry. There has been wine production in Britain since Roman times. In fact the Romans were growing grapes at least as far north as the Scottish Borders, which suggests the Roman Warm Period was warmer than the MWP, at least regionally. Production fell off during the Little Ice Age, for obvious reasons, but never completely stopped. Try http://www.englishwineproducers.com/ for information.
GreginOkinawa| 1.18.10 @ 8:38AM
Actually the "record" you speak of is quite small compared to the age of the earth. If go back and re-read national Gepgraphic you find that the earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling, and many ice ages...before man. WTF??? You mean the earth warmed and cooled before man? Go figure...maybe, just maybe, that ball of burning gas that's so close it can burn you just might have something to do with tmperature flucuations.
Radegunda| 1.16.10 @ 2:37AM
I use Wiki for spelling, dates, where something is located, what it used to be called. Beyond that, I pretty much always look elsewhere.
Spawn44| 1.16.10 @ 4:38PM
AGW has taken a long walk off a short peer thanks to the emails. To defeat these environmental socialist we must defeat the enablers, namely the socialist democrats who fund them, and boot their non american commie rear ends all the way to cuba in the next elections.
David Appell| 1.16.10 @ 6:23PM
Meanwhile, GISS has just announced that 2009 was tied (with 2007) for the 2nd warmest year of all time, after only 2005.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist.....s+dSST.txt
The first decade of this century was _by far_ the warmest decade in recorded history.
GreginOkinawa| 1.18.10 @ 8:49AM
Oh, a link to NASA...isn't this the same NASA who won't share their methodology? Isn't this the same NASA that survives on government research grants...the very grants that enable this BS? Besides, the emails were all hacked, now the world knows the "cheats". Man-made global warming has been totally debunked as a hoax and a fraud.
For more proof...69% of temperature measuring sensors are located within 10 meters of an artificial heat source...dare say you that this is not bogus data?
Happy reading libs:
http://www.america.gov/climate.....pAodD3KbRw
David Appell| 1.18.10 @ 3:55PM
Isn't this data the same data skeptics have been using to claim "global cooling" is underway? Seems the data is good when it says what you want, but not OK with it doesn't.
In any case, NASA is very transparent about their climate procedures. Here is the manual and software for their main climate model:
Model Description and Reference Manual
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html
You can even download the software and run it yourself.
Pingback| 1.17.10 @ 3:27PM
UNIPCC WRONG AGAIN! « TWAWKI links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Russell| 1.18.10 @ 1:26AM
Joe's audience seems a lot thicker than his sarcasm.
While a contrarian who chooses sides in scientific controversy by flipping a coin will only be wrong half the time, Tom has a batting average that would do credit to a steroid-free girl scout.
The only way to prevail in the science wars is to be able to bat in the majors, and apart from coach Lindzen Tom's chosen side is strictly Mudville.
Tom Moriarty| 1.18.10 @ 11:27AM
Bloggers, journalists, students, and academics should explicitly say that they will never cite wikipedia as a source for any controversial topic.
Snorbert Zangox| 1.18.10 @ 5:26PM
I would never consider looking up anything that I know much about on Wikipedia. If I am not famliar with the subject, how can I know if it is controversial? Therefore, Wikipedia is useless to me.
Office 2007 Professional| 1.29.10 @ 2:01AM
Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate
Rick Z| 2.4.10 @ 11:51AM
Global Warming is Man Made:
The center of the earth was 5,000 K when I was in college.
Albert Gore just told us that it is a million degrees inside the earth.
SO, Albert Gore is responsible for this EXTREME Global Warming.
Please note: While Albert Gore DID invent Global Warming, he did NOT invent the Internet.
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 7:19PM
Weekend Reader 2-12-2009, News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ysl boots| 3.31.10 @ 8:49AM
Yes,I very like your article,and they’re gorgeous!Thank you to share this!
lay123| 4.2.10 @ 3:05AM
www.in-watch.com
www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.2.10 @ 5:07AM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
karen| 4.2.10 @ 7:04AM
Not only are www.herveleger-outlet.comsuitable attire for most occasions they are also a very comfortable form of for men. The fabric they are usually made from is flexible and comfortable with plenty of ‘give’ in the cheapwww.us-chaneloutlet.com if you need to stretch, zcount jordan shoes they have a collar to protect your from the sun if you are likely to be spending time outdoors and they have buttons at the if the weather should turn a bit chilly.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 10:14PM
American Spectator’s Tom Bethel writes about my views on Wikipedia « Michael Fumento links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:40AM
http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/
ALange Sohne| 5.14.10 @ 2:36AM
It's all about control. It's the underlying belief by some that they are superior to everyone else and that the "unwashed masses" must have their daily lives closely regulated and controlled. The belief that "it's for their own good" and that, to be blunt, you are too stupid to run your own life and take responsibility for your decisions.
Converse| 8.11.11 @ 9:50PM
is good