Global Warming Movement Wasn’t Ready For Prime Time
Published on: February 11, 2010
show comments
  • Pingback: Global Warming Movement Wasn’t Ready For Prime Time « The Right Cup of Tea()

  • lrb

    “These people believe that the welfare of the human race requires a deep restructuring of the way the economies of all our countries work.”

    Because that was always the goal; AGW was just the means. In the 1960s the means was Revolution, in the 70s the Long March through Institutions, in the 80s anti-Reaganism and Social Democracy, in the 90s Clintonian Triangulation, but in the 00s, AGW.

    Don’t worry, these people will be back, they’ve always been with us and always will be. Just the means will change.

  • SC Mike

    Thank you for the link. It is an excellent post-mortem.

    These ingénues never realized that if yer gonna take away a man’s CO2-generating beverages, charcoal, and infernal-combustion engine, you’d best have an ironclad scientific case or more than a boatload of armed men.

  • Norm

    I think the lack of attention to detail is one of the critical failures in the AGW movement. A local anecdote illustrates this. Living in Arizona, the hottest temperatures in state during the summer were typically in the towns along the Colorado river thanks to their lower altitude compared to the desert regions further to the east like Phoenix and Tucson. A few years ago, the small town of Casa Grande, midway between Phoenix and Tucson, started to regularly displace the river towns as the hottest spot in Arizona. This change was accompanied by the relocation of the weather station in Casa Grande to a new location that was systematically a few degrees warmer than the old location. Applying Occam’s Razor to the question, it’s clearly a simpler answer that Casa Grande’s sudden warming is weather station artifact instead of some freakish local temperature spike.

    One of the challenges that the skeptics pose to the alarmists is data integrity. There are standards on how to build a weather station to cancel out siting factors that distort the data. The skeptics have documented that a lot of US weather stations fail to meet the standards, typically with factors that would boost recorded temperatures. Therefore, the data being used by NOAA and the IPCC to conclude things are really getting hotter is suspect.

    Careful climate scientists would want to be sure that they did not incorporate flawed data into their studies. Critics highlighting such flawed data ought to be thanked for auditing the science – genuine review.

  • David Spurgeon

    A remarkably brilliant piece of writing, sir!

    As one who admires the language almost as much as the truth, this is indeed what informed opinion must announce – the extremes laid forth, and the truth – always somewhere in the middle – clearly explained and most wonderfully expressed.

    Thank you.

  • Dave McK

    “They believe that the world is threatened by an imminent danger, yet they haven’t bothered to think through a comprehensive political strategy”

    There is no evidence to substantiate this speculation.
    All the evidence supports the contrary view that none of them ever believed any of it.
    Furthermore, the main thrust of the movement is and has always been political. These people have meetings to establish conferences to make roadmaps – they’ve laid the groundwork of this political structure with extreme conscientiousness.

    The actual ‘beliefs’ are irrelevant – the point is to find license to demand submission. A population of parasites had been created, funded, expanded and has no concept in its metaphysics for ‘creation of wealth’ beyond printing of paper. They can not survive without cannibalism any longer and there are lots of those mouths to feed.
    They recognise each other as a separate species and they all know who is prey.
    The debate was always over. They mean to eat.
    But what was once accomplished by force is now done by fraud. Your consent is required, for some reason. I guess they aren’t ready to face the pragmatic facts that when the victim begins to feel a lot of pain, he will protest and then the guns will have to come out because re-education has clearly failed.

  • Pingback: Rebellion News()

  • The FP article’s jargon of “global-warming deniers” is nowhere matched by references to ‘global warming hysterics”–perhaps because the author appears to be one, thus her concluding sentence: “Confusion, not orchestrated bias or, as some have asserted, greed, seems the most likely cause of recent slipups. But with the fate of the planet in the balance…, .”

    Of course, “the fate of the planet,” that is why the 2035 ‘slip up’ occurred [not because of bureaucratic bungling as the author suggests]. As has been reported [which shows you how much homework the FP writer did], the 2035 Glacier disaster was included for political, not scientific purposes.

    “Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

    “Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research….

    Dr. Lai has since denied these statements. Described by a colleague as a ‘straight shooter,” makes one wonder. Did somebody ‘get to’ Dr. Lai after his straight shooting talk with the reporter?

    It would be a great story if some journalist could follow up on this and see if the reporter recorded the interview..

  • We also have another source that Dr. Lai claimed this was not a mistake:

    Glaciergate – still a long way from the truth

    “Prof. Murari Lai…noted that it was wrong to assume, as has been done in sections of the media, that the year 2035 had crept in the report by mistake.”

  • Sam


    I’m interested that you don’t acknowledge some essential truths about power money and change. It’s as though you think it has been a fair fight & tactics are what is worth examining.

  • Pingback: “Climate Bunker” « Notas ao café…()

  • Jack

    “They believe that the world is threatened by an imminent danger, yet they haven’t bothered to think through a comprehensive political strategy”

    Oh, lets do as Mr. Mead suggests and “scientific issues aside” and just concentrate on the political issues.

    The warmers have made a bunch of mistakes by not ensuring a correct process, They haven’t been professionally organized and managed. They refused to deal with “inconvenient and harassing” FOI requests.

    Oh, yes! That’s the ticket. Let’s blame all on poor marketing and bad customer service. Call the PR department, they can fix this. Perhaps a speech by President Obama.

    Oh, yes. Lets ignore the science. Lets ignore whether the AGW hypothesis is right or wrong, after all, a proper “process” is what is needed. If we just had the right process, every one would believe.

    It is obvious, and has been from the beginning, that the IPCC is a political body, pushing for a political agenda, making claims for which there is no evidence. But it is the process that is at fault and not the science.

    Mr. Mead seems to think that all of the IPCC mistakes just some how, (I’m shocked, shocked!) got included.

    No, the science is the beginning, the middle and the end of what is wrong with the IPCC, and the only process that will solve the problem is criminal prosecutions. And an abrupt cessation of funding.

    I want my money back.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.