Climate hoax – big ask of readers

Were you to come to this topic cold, as so many kids must be doing, you’d google ‘climate change’ or the adventurous might even google ‘climate hoax’.

If they did the latter, page after page of all the correct journals on their reading lists from school or college ask things like, ‘Are there still some people denying what they see before their eyes?’ with shots of a third of the Antarctic melting.

Now that’s very hard to counter unless we have science within reach – links in other words.  See, it doesn’t cut it for me to just tell the post-Millennial that it’s a hoax, assert it, without being able to show why.

One hopeful article would be if we could show that meteorologists have consistently downrated or falsified old records to show that new records are being set now when they’re not.  I can do that over Australian temps.

But that’s only part of it – showing why the hockey stick is rubbish, also the greens post I did a decade or so ago and how it ties into religion.  It’s not enough though to silence serious trolls.

Then there are the pages saying ‘97% of scientists agree’.  Took me a long time to find an article saying yeah, majority of Dem donors say – but I don’t have that material at hand.  That’s why I stay off the topic, except for these:

The big ask

What I’m asking for is for someone right into this topic who has access to ‘definitive’ science, definitive studies, to please supply some so that if any climate newbie wants to know, we can just direct them to these urls. I sure as heck do not have the material at hand myself at this point.

Post navigation

22 comments for “Climate hoax – big ask of readers

  1. February 22, 2020 at 17:03

    Just direct folk to Good, well researched and presented science.

  2. February 22, 2020 at 17:46

    Thank you both for those but as I wrote to Ivan, it doesn’t help the newbie who doesn’t know which way to look – they are, after all, just blog urls, not urls to articles.

    See the problem here is we have on one side a group of experts for whom it’s easy to immediately access this topic or that within a huge field with millions of words on it around the world.

    It’s quite another for a newbie, and this is what this exercise is about, to be able to go to a one page summary with links leading out from it. So far, I see none.

    Take JoNova for example. There is a page I can find but no newbie is going to find it:

    And another:

    … but no summary anywhere. I, s a blogger, will look because I’m a ferreter. No kid is going to wade through 2000+ posts trying to find the big picture – it’s a silly ask.

    OK, over at Icecap, there is this:

    One goes there but it is poorly set out and again, where does the newbie go first? He would go to Proxy:

    … and what does that tell him about the state of play in the war? I’m no sure the expert readers understand what I’m saying here. For example, on Them, where would I direct someone who’s not heard of the concept? Which of the 10K posts? It needs a summary page and the topic is so huge and devotees have been inside it for so long, fighting the trolls, that no one seems to have stopped and provided for the new generation coming up.

    At the Icecap site, I found this:

    While the IPCC was alert for the (notably few) studies that support their optimism
    concerning the lack of non-climatic biases in global surface temperature averages, they
    ignored some recent studies that showed the opposite. de Laat and Maurellis (2004, 2006)
    used local carbon dioxide emission estimates as a proxy for local industrial activity, and
    thereby as an index of possible local non-climatic warming influences on atmospheric
    temperature trends. This interpretation, along with the assumption that local industrial
    activity creates a warming bias in the surface temperature network, leads to the prediction
    that there will be a spatial pattern of enhanced warming trends correlated with local
    industrial density. The authors found this correlation is indeed present in global
    temperature data collected both at the surface and the lower atmosphere.

    Good stuff and I, as a blogger, could use it as evidence that the IPCC was less than honest in its selection – good. But to plunge a newbie into that level of detail immediately is not good teaching practice.

    On the other hand, the other side has good starter packs for schools, in a form that newbies can understand.

    Had I been into this anti-gw-scam from the start, I might have prepared such a page. Surely someone on this side of argument, somewhere, has the one page summary we can follow links out of?

    Were I to do so – which I cannot because I was not in at the ground floor – I might start with the IPCC and Mann’s hockey stick.

    From there, I might go to falsification of past data.

    From there, I’d go to the real science, starting with that paleo bit.

    Sequential. You see what I mean?


    Went through Curry, Polar Bear and No Tricks. Curry was poor, no summary in navbar. Polar Bear was better but still no direction to travel.

    No Tricks had this:

    The IWJ article, authored by Japanese blogger Kirye, also reports: “Over 440 scientific papers questioned the main causes of climate change CO2 in 2019 alone” and that “the theory of global warming caused by CO2 is still a hypothesis” and so in reality does not have the broad consensus among scientists that is often claimed in the media and by some vocal scientists.

    … which was useful and might be used for the newbie as an opening example.

    But nowhere is there a definitive starter page. There must be one somewhere, there’s none at Watts Up, every site assumes we all know it all and are onside. The newbie will not be and will need convincing to explore. He first has to overcome his latent prejudice the other way, built up through a decade of schooling.

    It’s starting to appear that I’ll have to do it myself, the above links are useful for that and thanks a whole lot to those chaps.

  3. February 22, 2020 at 18:13

    I’m thinking of a possible starter page, just thinking out loud, mind.

    The newbie will first see the question about is anyone STILL denying? Then the 97% of scientists agree.

    I’d open with yes, very much disagreeing with the false framing by the climate scammers and cut to the Jap papers.

    Then to the hockey stick explosion.

    But why, asks the newbie, would they wish to do this? My Strong Greens post answers part of that but not all.

    So it needs a post on how it is worth billions in subsidies.

    Once we establish the principle of subterfuge and lying, we could go to the falsification of back data as a drum sting.

    Then links to the actual science as, say, at Icecap. So real science is at hand.

    Then a series of major accusations by the other side and their refutation.

    That’s roughly how I’d go about it.

    • Distant Relative
      February 22, 2020 at 18:23

      Also who are the people promoting it? Do those same people have financial interests in the companies who make the “green” products? Etc

  4. Distant Relative
    February 22, 2020 at 18:19

    Need to narrow it down and maybe take one topic at a time. Droughts for instance?

    Might be other stuff of use on that website.

  5. February 22, 2020 at 18:29

    Yes, page one – intro and snippets first, overview summary second, topic by topic index, first topic started

    Set of complete links at the foot of each page under a line.

    Good nav is crucial.


    Need to break for supper and get some music together too. Looking for a Leicester/City draw. France one man down but up in points.

  6. bruce charlton
    February 22, 2020 at 18:35

    @James you can’t argue this one. Firstly, because its about (anti-)morality, ingroup outgroup stuff – so there is no real arguing.

    But mainly because it is a false claim to knowledge. Nobody knows anything about this stuff – nobody knows If the climate is warming, because there is no validated understanding of what causes climate.

    Also because a large majority of the data is contaminated with dishonesty – we cannot trust ‘the science’.

    (Indeed, science is all-but dead – in the sense that science existed until a generation or two ago. The ‘evidence’ nowadays comes from research bureaucrats and entrepreneurs who are motivated by careerism; not truth seeking and truth speaking.)

    Even If (which is not really known) there is a long term trend of getting warmer – that is in the past, and nobody knows whether such trends continue, or plateau or reverse … nobody knows.

    Even If ‘They’ did know that the climate was going to get warmer in the future, and If they knew it was mostly due to CO2 (which obviously it isn’t) then this may well be a Good Thing, *overall* – indeed it probably is (given that our real problem on earth is ice ages).

    Even If it was getting warmer, due to CO2 and that was proven to be A Bad Thing ‘They’ have No Idea At All if this can be prevented, or how it might be prevented. (Lovelock said it is already way too late to prevent it.) So if they really believed this stuff, they would Prepare for global warming, not spend trillions on a futile attempt to stop it.

    Even if CO2 caused global warming was true and preventible by cutting down CO2 – then this is not going to happen with proposed policies because they are all about creating a multi-trillion dollar industry of fake ‘sustainable’ technologies that do Not reduce CO2 and instead incerase it; not least because they require five yearly cycles of re-tooling and infrastructure replacement.

    Put it together and look at who is funding and pushing the Climate Emergency (the richest and most powerful people and organisations) and it is obvious that this is about funding (with compulsory and subsidised ‘sustainable’ technologies) a totalitarian takeover (totality being justified by the fact that CO2 is the gas of life, and thus every living thing needs regulating).

    So, in dicussion, I would just reframe the whole thing in terms of being the dishonest product of evil motivation: an excuse for funding and implementing global totalitarianism.

  7. FoS
    February 22, 2020 at 19:27

    You cannot argue against CAGW – the field is just too large.

    However knowledgeable you become you are still only parroting stuff other people have told you – deniers listen to one set of people, alarmists to another. You just become a denialist version of Greta.

    Any graph that an alarmist presents will take you thousands of lines to refute plausibly – and who is going to read all that – an alarmist? You can’t persuade them, they are not listening.

    I am afraid that the handcart is going ever faster as we all head to Hell in it. A bit of mockery along the way is all that is left to us.

  8. February 22, 2020 at 19:34

    I’m in gathering mode at this time, no hurry. I like that JoNova summary page but take on the other arguments too.


  9. Andy5759
    February 22, 2020 at 20:42

    Great idea James. Having been a sceptic for so long I know precisely what you are getting at. I can easily preach to the converted but struggle to convince the adherents. Although I am making slow headway with an old friend of mine after long hours of debate/conversation. A general shout out to the community might produce results. I will drop requests during my online peregrinations, see what bubbles to the surface.

  10. February 22, 2020 at 21:00
  11. james wilson
    February 22, 2020 at 21:38

    Tony Heller. I read his blog, but the best link you can send to a low information-bad information individual is his Utube channel. Each vid is only a few minutes long, and they are listed in a neat column with the topic.

    I tell lost minds two things to prepare them to change their thinking, and not the climate. One, we are in an epic ice-age, right now, 2.5 million years in, after hundreds of millions of ice-free years. Two, the earth has been cooling for 65 million years and the cooler it gets the less CO2 is in the atmosphere–2000 ppm down to 400 ppm. We exist now in a carbon desert, and only one century ago we were down to 280 CO2 ppm, 100ppm away from plant extinction, and yours. 1-2000 ppm is a far better level for sustaining life.

    • February 22, 2020 at 22:13

      Cheers. Gathering.

  12. Mark Matis
    February 22, 2020 at 23:04

    One reason it is so difficult is that they refuse to provide their raw data. And of course, the Media love them, so it is not all that easy to dig out their “old” claimed temperatures.

  13. Ripper
    February 22, 2020 at 23:14

    If I were to come into this cold, as in most things I would be relying on my own instincts, since different things you hear in the news contradict each other a lot of the time. I usually have a good nose for anything that doesn’t smell right even without any hard evidence to start with. Believe everything you see, and nothing of what you hear. Eventually the truth does come to light.

    I find, when talking to people about climate change its no use to get mixed up in science, settled or not. But better to go back to the beginning and explain how it all started from the very first spark. This can be researched easily and you can see how things spiraled from there.

    I’ve found this old documentary invaluable. It explains how it all began, explained by some excellent sources and shows why global warming is a hoax, started by none other than Margret Thatcher.

  14. Andy5759
    February 22, 2020 at 23:27

    I gargled *climate crib sheets* this lot came up. All pro- of course. Useful for fisking, also knowing their weapons and how to disarm them. A battle of wits with an unarmed opponent can be fun.

    The above is a PDF of a document issued to all BBC staff. Paid for by Uno hoo.

    I’ll stop there. Too many to mention. Don’t want to give them the oxygen of click visits. It’s rather nauseating reading simplistic toot like that. Nary a nod to science as we know it James.

  15. Andy5759
    February 22, 2020 at 23:44

    I haven’t visited this place often, found it again.

    A good source above.

    An equally good source below, at least showing how they think and the language they use.

    If we are to go into battle we need armour, intel, and firepower.

  16. February 23, 2020 at 09:41

    Thanks for all those. There’s the basis there, methinks, to get started on a skeleton plan. Just need to get slightly better here.

  17. February 23, 2020 at 17:44

    Adding this from Edward Spalton:

  18. February 25, 2020 at 08:51

Comments are closed.