‘Climate Change Deniers’ Gagged by LA Times

Al Gore Tickled Pink

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light gray area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

So the LA Times has concluded it would be best to shut up the people who dare remind us that the actual observations say something completely different from 'AGW' models. Even if said contradictory observations can be found smack in the IPCC report, which incongruently keeps asserting that the 'models' should be take precedence over reality.

by Pater Tenebrarum

After 15 years of no 'warming', even while CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one third (from about almost nothing to still almost nothing), what is left to do for those whose livelihood and professional pride depends on keeping the doomsday story going?

For the scientists among them it would be a good time to ponder the validity of their models, which have consistently made predictions wide of the mark since they were first created. It may be a good time to have a dialogue with the many scientists who have long proposed alternative theories of the planet's climate cycles (that these cycles do exist and that we have been in a warming cycle for  thousands of years is not denied by anyone) – alternatives to 'AGW', or 'anthropogenic global warming' that is.

However, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out in the 1960s, science tends to work within 'accepted paradigms' that are not necessarily progressing toward the truth. Revolutionary theories that are not in keeping with the accepted paradigm may be rejected for a long time, until their correctness can no longer be denied. One should not even blithely assume that all 'later' science is necessarily better than 'earlier' science. At times valuable knowledge even gets lost and must be rediscovered (economics is a case in point). 

Anyway, many supporters of the AGW theory appear eager to shut off dialogue with opponents altogether. A friend pointed us to a tweet by Al Gore in this context, in which Gore informs us gleefully that: 

The @latimes no longer prints letters that deny manmade global warming. Why? Because they're "factually inaccurate." 

In other words, the LA Times seemingly believes itself to be in possession of the scientific 'truth' and those not accepting the 'facts' it has ascertained beyond doubt have hereby been excommunicated. The 'truth' you see, needs to be protected from naysayers. 

The Arbiters of 'Truth'

The LA Times letter editor's arrogant and patronizing attempt at explaining his decision can be read here. We want to just pick out one sentence that requires instant rebuttal. In an accusing tone he thunders: 

“Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom”. 

The 'liberals' (which really should be called leftists or socialists for the sake of precision) are mainly what Lenin would have referred to as 'useful idiots' in this case. Most sure have swallowed the AGW story hook line and sinker.

Speaking of 'factual inaccuracies', can you spot the factual inaccuracy in what the  LA Times letter editor wrote?

Again, absolutely no-one is denying that there is 'climate change'. The planet's climate has changed since day one about four billion years ago and will never crease doing so.

What is at issue and is definitely up for debate is if there is such a thing as 'man-made global warming'. That is obviously a big difference. That proponents of the AGW theory (among them virtually every government) want to 'curtail our freedom' is undeniable. Economic freedom is just as important an aspect of freedom (in our opinion possibly the most important) as other aspects of it.

The fact that they insist that we need to be subjected to a plethora of new taxes and extremely costly regulations on account of a theory that can no longer even be supported by what is surely the most important piece of evidence (namely, actual temperature change…) may well appeal to leftist sentiments.

After all, if all these demands were fulfilled, there would be economic stagnation, eventually followed by decline – and the left probably hates nothing more than the economic progress created by the market economy. Its entire redistributionist philosophy is based on the notion of a stagnant economic pie. Its penchant for central planning proceeds from the assumption of a static economy. So yes, the AGW theory is popular with the left due to its authoritarian  implications, the expansion of government power it promises to bring and the economic stagnation that will as a result of 'battling climate change at all costs' come within hailing distance.

The actual main proponents of the theory (as opposed to the hangers-on) can probably be divided into two camps: There are those who are convinced – because they are working inside the currently accepted scientific paradigm – that they are right, no matter how much countervailing evidence assaults their senses or how persuasive alternative theories may sound. Their life's work may well be at stake after all, and scientists have egos too (in fact, quite a few have probably big egos).

The second camp consists of those who couldn't give a flying (insert flying object of your choice) about 'freedom', 'truth' or whatnot, but have discovered that they could board a gravy train of truly immense proportions. Note that prior to 1980, climatology was a tiny branch of science continually starved for funding. Today AGW scaremongering is keeping legions of people in clover. It is one of the greatest rackets out there, and almost entirely tax payer funded (a source of funding that is considered a bottomless well).

Lastly, how anyone can still say the following with a straight face in the wake of 'Climategate' is beyond us: 

“[...] when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.” 

The implicit assertion that among the opponents of AGW there are no “scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review” is either completely misguided or a flat-out propaganda lie. That there exists in fact a vigorous scientific debate over the merits of AGW theory can be easily ascertained by visiting Anthony Watts' famous 'denier' site.  As Ross McKittrick notes in a recent article: 

“Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph. The graph dramatically shows that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! This is hardly surprising, considering how defective the models are, and how heavily they depend on the notion that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming.

What is commonly dismissed as the ‘skeptical’ or ‘denier’ view coincides with real-world observations.” 

(emphasis added)