We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The establishment media did not get the memo

It is amazing the establishment is still peddling the whole nonsensical ‘climate change’ fraud. I guess they did not get the memo that people outside the BBC/Guardian bubble have noticed that the Emperor has no clothes.

50 comments to The establishment media did not get the memo

  • Iain

    Given that the Establishment media is obviously the mouthpiece for the Establishment, and that the Establishment has rather a lot of money, power and other vested interests tied up in this particular pet project, surely it would only be amazing if they had broken ranks rather than kept to the party line?

  • fake

    Except plenty of people do think it is still true, probably a good majority.

  • George Atkisson

    The whole point of the establishment is to praise the splendid garb of The Narrative no matter what logic and common sense have to say. They have now assumed the power to silence, suppress, and publicly contemptually dismiss anyone holding other viewpoints.

    Until The Narrative changes, of course. And any conflicting emails and editorials simply disappear from public access.

    We have always been at war with Eastasia, don’t you see? You don’t remember that? Oh, you will. You most definitely will. Or else.

  • surely it would only be amazing if they had broken ranks rather than kept to the party line?

    Oh absolutely! I am not really amazed in the slightest, I am merely pointing out that many people have noticed the Emperor does indeed have no clothes. I am ‘amazed’ in the “ha ha ha” sense :D

    Except plenty of people do think it is still true, probably a good majority.

    I doubt that very much. Once you get outside The Bubble, it is extremely easy to find people who think it is all bollocks. It is one of those topic in which almost any ‘Pub Poll’ would leave Guardianistas shocked.

  • PeterT

    What I think has changed is that there is a realisation that absolutely nothing can be done to reduce carbon emissions, with no appetite for unilateral action. Thank you China, US, Russia, Australia!

  • What I think has changed is that there is a realisation that absolutely nothing can be done to reduce carbon emissions

    Oh no I do not think that is it at all. Far from it.

    I think ‘Climate Gate’ and a whole host of similar revelations are what has changed perceptions for a vast number of people. The change is not the perception that “nothing can be done”, the change is the perception that “it is all a complete pack of lies by people whose grants depend on a particular outcome”.

  • Spruance

    This has to be uphold until a new scare is found.

  • Kevin B

    Add in the Al Gore type hypocricy and the Instapundit “I’ll believe there’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis and don’t regularly fly to exotic locations and five star hotels for pointless conferences” meme, and the number of believers is falling rapidly.

    You might possibly, with a selective enough sample, garner a majority who believe that there might be a problem, but to get a majority who put ‘climate change’, or even ‘the environment’, twenty first in their list of the top twenty problems facing the country, you would have to poll politicians, academics and the media, and even then it would have to be a select sample of those parasites.

  • Roue le Jour

    There sems to be no limit to its range either. We recently had a “Save the Earth” concert here in my Thai secondary school. I’m thinking of giving China a go.

  • Is there any significance to the word exposed having been put in quotes in the headline? (Oh, and do hover above the link before you actually click on it :-D )

  • PeterT

    I hope you are right Perry, but a sum total of zero family and friends (almost lefties to a man unfortunately) and colleagues have amended their views as far as I am aware. Not a statistical survey admittedly.

  • William O. B'Livion

    First let’s fix this bit:

    …that people outside the BBC/Guardian/NYT/LATimes/etc./etc./&etc./ bubble…

    There.

    Now let’s acknowledge that it’s a pretty big bubble, and it’s already resisted a lot of pricks attempts to pop it.

    Eventually though, it will.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I suspect the problem (and not just with CAGW) is that Progressives have discovered that shouting “Bad dog, BAD!” silences their own self-doubts and makes their critics cringe. So long as they can do this from the medias’ high ground, actual facts don’t matter.

  • PeterT: I guess it depends on the circles you move it of course, but I think there is a lot of evidence that the tide has turned on that issue, particularly the lower down the Predatory power layer you go.

  • Dom

    I think whether or not it is believed depends on how abstract the statement is. Do you believe in climate change (not warming or cooling, just change) — most will say yes. Do you believe that populations should reduce fossil fuels — if the population is China, most say yes; if it is the home population, most say no.

  • Jake Haye

    Among those acutely sensitive to social status (i.e. ‘leftists’), CAGW is seen as a high-status belief, and scepticism of it low status.

    The CAGW meme will persist until that situation is reversed.

  • Jaded Voluntaryist

    I keep having mental pictures of the last few survivors of humanity, in the dawn of a new ice age, huddled over a burning Picasso, and there’s one who’s still going on about man made climate change.

    He gets eaten first……

  • Some in the BBC do appear to have got the memo and are beginning to ask pertinent questions; I’m thinking of Andrew Neil and also John Humphrys who was speaking to Lord Krebs this morning on the Today programme about the new CCC report:
    https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20140709_r4

  • bloke in spain

    “I guess they did not get the memo that people outside the BBC/Guardian bubble have noticed that the Emperor has no clothes.”

    Well, you could turn it round & say “I guess they did not get the memo that people outside the Samizdata bubble haven’t noticed that the Emperor has no clothes.” I fact they’ve been admiring his suit & commenting on the cut & the buttons.

    Trouble is, the global warming mob & their friends in the media & the education system have done a very good job. It’s hard to find anyone’s been through the latter in the past few years who isn’t a believer. It’s been wall to wall propaganda, no punches pulled. And sorry. You skeptics, right or wrong, are f***ing hopeless at knowing how to push people’s buttons. You will keep talking about the science. No-one understands the science. Or wants to. It’s emotions change minds.

  • Complete bollocks. The net is awash with sceptics now. More significantly the mere fact sceptic stories now get reported in the MSM shows it is too big to ignore. Unless you are the BBC that is.

    But I agree it is not the arguments about the science, it is the increasing revelations of all the outright porkie pies.

  • Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray

    Sorry to put facts in your way, but here in Australia, the clothing company Katmandu has lost money because people have not bought warm clothing, because the past Southern Autumn for Australia was exceptionally warm. I doubt if a clothing business would be part of a scam since it costs them money, and as a Sydneysider I can verify that Australia has been very warm for the past few years.
    So us southerners know that something is going on- did you notice the reports of glaciers in Antarctica melting at faster rates than predicted? Is Greenland still losing ice because of the warm weather?

  • veryretired

    AGW, or whatever the latest code word is today, is merely a stalking horse, and so the tranzis will ride it until it can’t stagger along anymore, and then find a new mount to carry them to their only true goal—a totally and completely controlled administrative autocracy managed and defined by they and their allies.

    It’s the policies that matter. And whatever the crisis du jour happens to be, the policy proposals remain consistent, and always directed toward enhancing the state, or federation, or whatever the latest incarnation of political control is, and increasing the power of the denizens of the state.

    There is only one place this power can come from—the common citizen, who is relentlessly condemned for being selfish, and thoughtless, and short-sighted, and wasteful, and all other bad things, and who must be saved from himself, and all the other naughty selves, who would destroy the world if it weren’t for the efforts of the elites who clearly should be running everything anyway.

    The earth warms, the earth cools, the sun comes up , the sun goes down, the birds fly south, and the gnu migrate to where ever it is they migrate to, and those seeking power over their fellow citizens instinctively move toward whatever source increasing power seems to be flowing from.

    This year it’s still climate whatchamacallit. Whatever that changes into, the rest will remain the same until they’re stopped, and stopped really hard.

    Then maybe we can have a few years peace until the next group of a–holes cranks it all up again, and we have to do it all over again.

    The tree of liberty does need that watering now and then, you know?

  • Laird

    True, those who stalk the corridors of power (in government, academia and the media) haven’t given up on the CAGW fraud yet. But note the theme of the linked article: it’s not crying out for greater reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (even in China) or some form of carbon tax. Rather, it is essentially saying “we still think CAGW is real but clearly the country is not going to do anything significant to stop it so we need to be preparing to deal with its effects.” In other words, amelioration rather than elimination. That’s a significant step in the right direction. Despite the paucity (dare I say non-existence?) of real scientific evidence for CAGW, there does remain the possibility that it’s true. And if it is, beginning to prepare now for slightly higher sea levels and more floods is a perfectly rational action. Far more rational than economically suicidal CO2 reductions.

    No one disputes that the earth’s climate does change over time, and at times has been both significantly colder and significantly warmer than it is today. Whether or not human activity is a contributing factor in climate change, I maintain that higher levels of CO2 and a slightly warmer temperature would, on balance, be good things. But there would be a few drawbacks to it, and building a few more dikes and stronger sea walls is an entirely sensible precaution to take.

  • Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray

    Though I should also mention that Australia is a small continent, surrounded by seas, and its’ weather might have different variables because of that. British climate patterns might be completely different to ours, not to mention North American.

  • Larry Sheldon

    They are still peddling it because the libiots are still buying it AND paying top dollar for it. Your dollar!

  • Mark Green

    While I realise that being balanced in this debate always exposes a chink in the armour to the AGW crowd, the CCC does seem to be focused on adaptation, which is a huge step forward, as Laird pointed out above.

    Admittedly, the reaction is “give us more public money” which is disappointing but, hey, baby steps.

    And I quite like this Lord Krebs guy – he seems rational.

  • Mr Ed

    They don’t need to read memos, they have the Climate Change Act in place and there is no prospect of repeal in sight. The taxes are levied and the jobs are funded: game, set and match.

  • MM Man

    The taxes are levied and the jobs are funded: game, set and match.

    Yeah that is what they thought in Australia too. And they were wrong. That’s why I think this post is right, the BS has been detected, not by the few but by the many. It will take time for the politics to catch up in some places but if you want to see the future, look at Australia.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Paul Ehrlich Warns that People May Begin Eating The Dead

    Includes a video of Mr. Ehrlich, from HuffPo. Some of the comments are pretty good, too. There’s a longish one toward the top from “n5ifi” listing Dooms Said by Doomsayers through the Ages.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Here you go. The definition of Climate Change, from Introduction to Sociology (free textbook from Rice.edu + openstaxcollege.org):

    Climate change, which used to be called global warming, is a deeply controversial subject, despite decades of scientific research that demonstrates its existence. Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures due to human activity and, in particular, the release of greenhouse gases into the environment. While the planet as a whole is warming––hence the term global warming––the term climate change is now used because the short-term variations can include higher or lower temperatures, despite the overarching trend toward warmth. Another effect is more extreme weather. There are increasingly more record-breaking weather phenomena, from the number of Category 4 hurricanes to the amount of snowfall in a given winter. These extremes, while they make for dramatic television coverage, can cause immeasurable damage to crops, property, and even lives.

    - Introduction to Sociology – CHAPTER 20 | POPULATION, URBANIZATION, AND THE ENVIRONMENT p467. (OpenStax College, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA.)
    ___________________________________________

    This is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to begin, and yet millions of Americans are apparently uncritically sucking this sort of propaganda down and parroting it on a daily basis. It really is The Marching Morons. Depressing really.

  • Andrew Duffin

    The Establishment will tend to reinforce whatever nonsense currently serves its purpose of constantly increasing its power over the people – as many here have pointed out.

    What the linked article does not mention, though, is that the recent floods in Somerset were almost entirely the result of deliberate EU policy to increase flooding in Somerset. This is one of those things that never makes it into the legacy media in case ordinary people wake up to how we are governed now.

    Read all about it chez the good Dr. North: http://www.eureferendum.com/

  • bloke in spain

    “Complete bollocks. The net is awash with sceptics now.”
    And this proves? The net’s alive with LOLcats pics as well. You can find anything on the net. If you go looking for it.
    The vast majority of people don’t.
    They e-mail. They Facebook. They look up holiday flights.
    That’s exactly what I mean by “the bubble”.
    You go looking for skeptics, you find skeptics. It’s just confirmation bias.

    A few skeptics now turn up on the MSM? If one can be bothered watching that particular programme, maybe you get a different point of view. Few do. Against CGW being on the back of cereal packets. “Save the planet!”TM
    Skepticism’s not even on the same page.

  • MM Man

    Skepticism’s not even on the same page

    Australia, mate. Australia. Were the people rioting on the streets when the government flushed the whole AGW thing down the dunny? No, mate, they were cheering.

  • Kevin B

    bis, down the pub or the golf club or anywhere else I go, global warming comes up in conversation in only a very few circumstances. When it’s pissing down with rain or when snow prevents us playing golf some wag will mutter “bloody global warming” or when talk turns to the price of energy or petrol the group will start cursing and swearing about “bloody windmills” and “bloody government”. These days no-one in my circle tries to defend either climate change or the government’s energy policy,

    If, (when), we start getting power cuts expect the anti GW backlash to get really fierce. There’s a lot of bloody minded resentment building up out in pleb land and it’s not going to take a lot to turn it into real anger.

    When the euro elections were upcoming and I started talking among my friends about voting UKIP there were more than a few mutters about ‘racism’ and ‘bunch of clowns’ and such, but when I mentioned that the UKIP energy policy was to stop subsidising windmills I got a much more enthusiastic reception.

    And I’ll repeat my point from earlier; when asked to rate the problems facing themselves, the country, or the world, global bloody warming doesn’t even make the list. This of course will change when we get another freezing winter and power cuts to go along with it. But not in a way which will please the alarmists.

    Oh, and changing ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ and blaming the cold on that ain’t gonna cut it. We’re really not that stupid.

  • llamas

    “Out where the river broke
    The bloodwood, and the desert oak
    Holden wrecks and boiling Diesels
    Steam in forty-five degrees . . . ‘

    I’m not sure that we can draw any conclusions from a single summer season in Australia :-) After all, North America just had a winter as brutally-cold as any in living memory. Doesn’t prove there’s global cooling.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Mr Ed

    MM man,

    Nice to hear optimism Sir, let us hope we soon call ‘game, set, match and Championship’.

  • Larry Sheldon

    While I realise that being balanced in this debate

    Sure way to identify a leftist–want to talk about “balance” between “absolutely wrong” and “clearly observable” (or “compromise” between taking half of what is yours, and taking all of it).

  • Slartibartfarst

    @bloke in spain is arguably correct in saying that …the global warming mob & their friends in the media & the education system have done a very good job
    - and thus @MM Man’s comment regarding Australia may in hindsight just be about a temporary setback in what @veryretired says:
    …the tranzis will ride it until it can’t stagger along anymore, and then find a new mount to carry them to their only true goal—a totally and completely controlled administrative autocracy managed and defined by they and their allies.
    Similarly, the BBC’s remorseless punting of Islamism – which makes a lot of sense in that they will likely continue to push this because – and as long as – it supports the tranzi objective utopia.
    There is an interesting parallel thought here, as Tom Kratman refers in the non-fictional afterword of the science fiction novel “Caliphate”: the tranzi’s policies of appeasement and inertia effectively cause the subjection of Europe to Islamic control.

  • Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray
    July 10, 2014 at 12:57 am

    Did you notice solar scientist Abdussamatov predicting a coming little ice age with noticeable effects starting in 2014?

    We are about to have an unusual cold snap in North America. One TV station is attributing it to solar activity.

    http://www.abc2news.com/weather/weather-blogs/polar-vortex-to-take-a-vacation-south-next-week

  • Slartibartfarst

    @M.Simon: I don’t know if it was due to a polar vortex-induced cold snap or a coming Little Ice Age, but coincidentally I got a distinctly frosty response to my request for an extension to my overdraft from my bank manager the other day.

  • Slartibartfarst,

    What you need is some hot money ASAP. Although cold cash will do.

  • Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray

    How good is the track record of the solar scientist in question?

  • Slartibartfarst

    @M.Simon:
    How good is the track record of the solar scientist in question?

    Hey, that’s a very good question!
    I hadn’t realised that there would probably be some kind of a points-rated grading system for solar scientists. These scientists measure things like Solar cycle activity, Solar irradiance activity, and Solar sunspot activity, so their track record would presumably include how much of that sort of thing they had done in their research work and whether their stochastic method/analysis of the data they collected was up to the standards of (say) the British Royal Statistical Society.
    Maybe solar scientists are “luminaries”, by definition, so they would presumably have a luminescence rating if they were bright enough for the job?
    I think we should be told.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Oops, sorry, that last post of mine should have been addressed to @Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray, not @M.Simon.

  • Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray

    I just want to know whether he made any weather predictions in the past, and if any he made were right! Is that too much to ask?

  • Is that too much to ask?

    Have you tried asking Google? I’m told it helps when looking for all kinds of things.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Ah well, if it’s predictions you want, there’s a really good report from Sean Thomas at The Telegraph, who, in June 2013, attended a conference of national forecasters assembled in Exeter:
    ___________________________________
    By Sean Thomas Science Last updated: June 19th, 2013

    Image: Huddersfield, 2017.

    Whither the weather? As you may have heard, a conference of national forecasters assembled this week in Exeter: to discuss the future of the British climate, following the spate of harsher than expected winters, and unusually wet summers, since 2007.

    Already, commentators are asking if global warming is to blame. In particular, some are wondering if the direction of the Jet Stream is being altered by Arctic ice melt. Others are speculating that natural variations, such as the “Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation”, might be responsible for recent evolutions.

    However, most of this reportage has been second-hand. Unprecedentedly, I had direct access to the meteorologists concerned, as I was in Exeter in spirit form, and I managed to speak to the principal actors.

    First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

    Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.

    When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.

    Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”

    It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit. There are plenty of climate change scientists who are equally forthright on the possibilities of change, or no change, and of more hot, or less hot, or of rain, or no rain, or of Britain turning into the Sahara by next weekend, or instead becoming a freezing cold Frostyworld ruled by a strange, glistening ice-queen – crucially, it all depends on the time of day you ask them, and whether or not they had asparagus the day before.

    So who are we to believe? For a final word, I turned to the greatest climate change scientist of all, Dr David Viner, one-time senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in 2000 that, within a few years, winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    However, he was trapped under a glacier in Stockport, so was unable to comment at the time the Telegraph went to press.

    Read more by Sean Thomas on Telegraph Blogs
    Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter
    Tags: climate change, Met Office
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/
    _______________________________________

    Mind you, I think he was probably taking the piss.

  • Slartibartfarst

    @Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray: On a more serious note, there’s an interesting note about predictions here, which includes reference to solar activity, and is about a scientist (Prof. Easterbrook) who has a long history of being consistently on-target and rational (non-alarmist) with his science and estimates for future climate changes:
    __________________________
    Prediction: In 2000, geologist Don Easterbrook predicted a cooling period will start in a few years and stated that thus far his prediction appears to be happening. Easterbrook based his prediction on projecting well-defined patterns of warming and cooling into the future. In his view, the term pause is a misnomer because the term assumes continuous warming is the normal. We may be in a phase change towards a cooling. Based on the Greenland ice core record, between about 9,000 to 700 years ago (the latter the start of the Little Ice Age) the climate was about 2.5 to 5.5 deg F warmer than today. Glacial advances and retreats match changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Then, the question is what drives the PDO? Easterbrook thinks that, based on the isotopes of Carbon and Beryllium in the ice cores, solar changes, total solar insolation, solar magnetism, and associated changes cosmic ray intensity (Svensmark hypothesis), change the PDO. Low sunspots are associated with lower solar insolation and solar magnetism and greater cosmic rays. It will be interesting to see if Easterbrook’s prediction holds. His views are similar to those of Lüning and Abdussamatov.

    From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/13/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-141/
    _________________________________
    For some reason, a lot of the post-modern scientists seem to hate his guts, sometimes going to great lengths to try and ad hom/discredit him (even signing petitions!). Unfortunately, the facts, as he says, tend to speak for themselves, for those willing to see and find out. He points out that everything he refers to is well-documented, in the public domain and peer-reviewed (not that the latter seems to make for much in this day and age though).
    -
    Hope this helps or is of use.

  • http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/analysis-solar-activity-ocean-cycles.html

    Analysis: Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2

    Dan Pangburn has updated his analysis identifying the two primary drivers of global temperature:

    1) the integral of solar activity
    2) ocean oscillations [which are in-turn driven by solar activity and perhaps lunar-tidal forcing].

    The correlation of the integral of solar activity and ocean cycles to global temperature is 90.49%, and with the addition of CO2 the correlation only improves very slightly to 90.61%, demonstrating CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.

  • Slartibartfarst

    @M. Simon: Thanks. I had read that. However, correlation is not necessarily indicative of a causal relationship, as my old stats lecturer used to warn us in stage 101.
    Certainly there seems to be little or no useful statistical significance or correlation between C02 levels and the global climate temp anomaly, or which may point towards AGW – over recent history and over the ages – so the solar activity+ocean oscillations already looks to be a better bet. The thing is, can you predict from that data? Solar scientists seem to be able to predict, for the longer term, because it’s all a bit like clockwork (cyclical) rather than theoretical supposition.

    But @Nick (Blame FrenchMEN) Gray asks:
    “I just want to know whether he made any weather predictions in the past, and if any he made were right! Is that too much to ask?”

    Aside from the fact that there’s arguably a confusing difference between the prediction of “climate” changes v. “weather” variation, it does beg the question as to how the hundreds of scientists working at the UK Met Office have managed to achieve their enviable and consistent track record of failing to accurately or correctly predict the weather over the last couple of decades. I mean, they only finally released the conformation of The Pause in global warming, very, very quietly, on New Year’s Eve 2012 – said Pause now being 17 years and 10 months old (and counting).
    Surely the Met Office wonks at least deserve some kind of a medal for such resolute resilience in the face of so much overwhelming observational data that refuted their pet religio-political ideology and theories? It is pretty impressive.

    As I put it to my now 13 y/o daughter: “You know all that global warming and climate change they keep telling you about? None of it happened within your lifetime.”.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>