Friday
May062016
by 
Josh
Josh Byway robbery - Josh 374
May 6, 2016 Josh ;)
There is a fairly persistent alarmist idea that if only 'Climate Change' was properly communicated then everyone would believe all the hype, spin and misinformation and ignore the politicking, the dodgy science, and the duff statistics.
The latest study from the University of California outlines how to talk about climate change to increase donations.
How to talk about climate change so people will act
Published in the journal Climatic Change, the study finds that people are willing to donate up to 50 percent more cash to the cause when thinking about the problem in collective terms.
Thinking about climate change from a personal perspective produced little to no change in behaviour.
Reader Comments (93)
Does Ayla's increasing delerium reflect successful frakking operations beneath her Delphic cavern ?
If she has a cash flow, there must be a lot of ethylene in the oracular air.
Ayla thanks you Russell for your concern.
The frac was totally successful, but miniquakes greatly disturb her karma.
The frackers had no understanding of the niceties.
Ethylene tablets (the triangular purple ones) were ineffective.
Delirium is as permanent as the CO2 mists surrounding the frac site.
Mr K. (May 7, 2016 at 4:34 PM): it is a not really a question of believability of the concept, it is one of believability of the sources. Most people “know” about global warming/climate change from such sources as the BBC; we have been indoctrinated to accept that whatever the BBC says will have been checked, tested and verified, and thus has to be the truth. Alas, while the BBC may well have deserved that reputation in times past, in the past couple of decades (perhaps even more – I can go back to the 1980s for one example of this), it is a trust that they have quite blatantly abused.
p.s. your humour is getting better (as if you really wanted me to critique your work!).
RR. But it's not just the BBC, what explains the New Scientist, American Geographic, Science, Nature and so on ad infininitem? Why do rational, well trained people accept AGW, and keep with it? What separates them from us? I don't t think we are any cleverer, or more thoughtful. It's a puzzle for which I have no key.
Even the faintest of praise re humour is greatly appreciated.
There is a reference for you upon calcification over on the Krebs thread.
“Climate change is arguably the largest collective-action problem the world has ever faced,” said lead author Nick Obradovich, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science in UC San Diego’s Division of Social Sciences. “Yet we’re operating on a lot of baked-in assumptions on how to motivate people.”
is it just me reading/hearing more of this "baked-in" comment & wondering what it means ? as it seems to be on the increase.
but maybe it's not new (BBC bake-off may have influence here as they only use Green ovens)
anyway - great cartoon Josh - this just provides another example why a lot of people are earning a living on the back of
this "largest collective-action problem the world has ever faced,” crap
Alan Kendall, I find anything more powerful than a kurma can lead to minor eruptions, which disrupt the karma. It is the yoghurt in the korma that makes it calmer, and dissipates the excess heat.
If the frackers added yoghurt, to the fracking fluid, the fracking protesters might experience fewer deeper rumbles from down below. Mother Gaia might appreciate the gesture, and her dodgy smelly geysers would gargle with contentment, and significantly less gas.
Do geologists have any recommendations for relieving gas pressure from down below, without noxious emissions?
Think of the children, you cruel, cruel climate heathens!
Mr K.: yep, I know, and have already nicked it. TY.
As for the more complex question of why others have followed the BBC, the answer has to be …. I have no idea. I suspect that they might have been swept up in the global hysteria, and are intent of getting the definitive scoop on what is threatening our very existence. They have become so centred on this concept that they have become blind to the fact that the supposed threat does not really exist.
Ayla, we your most faithful of servants, we of much learning who have devoted ourselves to the unravelment of your sayings are again full of the greatest puzzlement.
You urge us to think, but upon what? Of the children? But whose? Your minions are the unsullied, so children are not amongst them.
'Cruel, cruel climate heathens" is readily understood, but why the repetition of your condemnation? You seem so urgent.
Oh turkish delight, halo to our moon, give us guidance.
More ethylene has been ordered.
The Catholics must have thought about this in the early days of Henry the VIII.
@May 6, 2016 at 6:17 PM | Registered Commenter dennisa
You say: Vivienne Westwood is on the case:
"Dame Vivienne Westwood to talk climate control at Manchester Museum"
I notice that in Wikipedia (my source of information on all trivial matters) - this statement:-
“She was deeply inspired by the shock-value of punk”
Would that not sum up the value of any contribution she might make?
gC (9.26pm) whilst contemplating using my devastating wit to respond to yours re hot foods eaten by geologists, I remembered a witty piece published in the 1997 issue of European Geologist. I kept an abridged copy, and think it could do with an airing. I hope you enjoy
Real Geologists.....
Don't eat quiche. They don't know what it is. Real geologists eat tonsil-killer chili.
Don't need rock hammers. They break rock samples off with their bare hands.
Don't sit in offices. If they had wanted to sit in offices they would have been geophysicists.
Don't need geophysics. Geophysicists measure things nobody can seeor feel, and make up a whole lot of numbers about them (and get the wrong answer)*
Don't use compasses. That smacks of geophysics. Real geologists always know exactly where they are and the location of the nearest pub.
Don't make maps. Maps are for novices and pansies who like to play with coloured pencils.
Don't write reports. Bureaucrats write reports and look at what they're like.
* I think today, continuing the long-lived jousting that continues between geologists and geologists, there might well be an addition linking geophysicists with failed climate scientists.
Why would the Groaniad promote global warming ? Delingpole omits to mention that it is the single biggest recipient of HSBC advertising. HSBC are/were big players in the carbon market.
'Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil by James Delingpole.
But who is it that sponsors the Guardian's Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)
And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)
And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion. And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There?s a clue in this line here: ?Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.?
And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million) And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild?s bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the ?new world order? (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading?
Or why not try this blog, in which a German Green party MP is revealed being given hefty donations by a solar power company? Or how about this tiny $70 million donation to the climate change industry from the Rockefeller Foundation?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/
As my humble circumstances appear to be of interest, I will mention that I live in what you might call a tepee, although it is not, in what you might call a village, although it is not.
I would elaborate (probably not) but our druid is summoning us by beating her bucket with a stick.
This is a typical Groaniad climate article. Not written by some destitute individual rotting in the slums of New Orleans, but a (female gendered) senior academic,TED Cyborg. Everything about it is a some kind of fabrication / simulation of the real world.
'My family fell victim to a warming world. Now we need to build for this new reality'
http://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2016/may/08/climate-change-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo
'Vicki Arroyo is executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center and Professor from Practice at Georgetown Law'
The most astonishing aspect of Climate Alchemists is that they accept as some kind of Holy Writ that their main experimental instrument, the Pyrgeometer, measures a real energy flux from the atmosphere they call 'Radiative Forcing'.
In reality, as is easily demonstrated, the instrument measures a potential energy flux from a virtual radiative emitter to a perfect radiation sink at Absolute Zero; there is zero net surface IR in all self-absorbed GHG bands. Anyone who argues that Maxwell and Planck believed in bidirectional IR fluxes should read their works very carefully: that is only true in a vacuum. The modellers must go back to the beginning!
Ayla (halo to our moon),
Your minions grow restless.
For months they have been proselytizing, convincing your followers of your long solitary sojourns in the cavern,
Now in a fit of pique, you reveal your "tepee"
Some tepee, like the Shard is a tepee.
We think you ought to be taking more of this ela borate powder when you bathe. It will remove the itch when you come clean.
Alan Kendall, actually that is just the sort of thing I had in mind! I have always been very hands-on in my career. Very few things go wrong, or need fixing under laboratory conditions, or in computer models. Unfortunately the Lab and computer geeks expect real events to be tailored to their needs, rather than go out and witness real events to tailor the experiments and models.
David Walliams did that wonderful sketch/character 'computer says no'. In the same way that so much of Monty Python is still relevant today, the 'Computer says no or yes' mentality is too prevalent in all walks of life, especially climate science.
Do teepees have proper flush toilets? To pee, or not to pee, that is the question. For Donald Trump, toupee, or ridiculous male vanity, remains the unanswered question.
golf Charlie.
I very much doubt that our turkish "halo of the moon" would agree to reside beneath Trump's toupee, even metaphorically.
Alan Kendall, Trump's hairdresser could hold the secret to providing temporary shelter for climate refugees. A solution out of nothing, consisting completely of fresh hair, for a perceived problem, that exists in a few minds.
golf Charlie,
Do you think Trump might build a wall around his corn-coloured barnet, just to keep those Mexican Muslims out?
Brussels 2009:-
https://euobserver.com/environment/29132
Germany 2011 :-
http://www.reuters.com/article/germany-carbon-fraud-idUSLDE77E0F120110815
UK Feb 2016:-
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2016/02/11/another-19-carbon-credit-boiler-room-scams-bite-the-dust-including-not-before-time-carbon-neutral-investments/
France last week:-
http://www.france24.com/en/20160503-france-trial-multi-billion-carbon-emissions-trading-fraud-opens-paris
Same old, same old. It's not the WE I am concerned about. It's the THEY.
Alan Kendall, a good barnet, and syrup of fig, sounds like the Green Party's Defence policy. Scair them, and make them run. It would be cheaper than Trumpeting a Wall, which might fall down.
I can't say I warm to Trump, but Warmists fear for their livelihoods. One way or another, it is unlikely that Trump will be photographed near a working wind turbine, unless he gets protection for what he wears on his head.
They're all in it together, to coin a phrase.
[ Sorry, duplicate comment ]
There's another attempt to "talk about climate change so people will act" at the so-called Conversation.
Two curious things about it are that (a) it was previously posted, and then pulled, back in February, and (b) the authors are part of a group that are keen on "improving intergroup relations through intergroup contact", but unfortunately don't seem very keen to join in an intergroup discussion. So far the only conversation has been between me and Geoff.
Josh and the GWPF should welcome Tom Toles co-authoring a book with Michael Mann as warmly as Richard Nixon did the collaboaration of Ronald Searle and Hunter Thompson
vvussell, it is very impressive that you associate Michael Mann with Richard Nixon. Many of us thought that Nixon's lying, if not Unprecedented, would at least be Unrepeatable., but there again, what can be relied upon about climate science?
What if Exxon and all the other Oil Companies all facing prosecution did an Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged style shut all their gas stations and oil refineries and drilling operations and pulled out of America overnight.
Do what OPEC and Aqida failed to achieve and collapse the U S economy
Jamspid. Would never happen. Large companies need cash flow; resource companies need to replace wasting assets so needing liquidity. The USA is their largest customer. Oil companies fight like cats for market share. Any loss of market share or deliberate loss of cash flow and the company directors would be immediately replaced by large investors supported by screaming small shareholders. Wall Street would also have its say.
Why would they want to collapse the US economy? They are children of it, and feed on it's t*ts.
So if I start an environmentalist charity called .... erm .... Frosty McFrost, the more money people give me the cooler the planet will get. Magic. No wonder Brian Cox thinks science is so absolutely magical.
prof cux thinks science is smart because it allows for trying out so many pastel colored tight tshirts
sexy jumpers and generally look, lik, totally cool.. it excites his misses who considers him
the ideal barbie muppet
"there is zero net surface IR in all self-absorbed GHG bands. Anyone who argues that Maxwell and Planck believed in bidirectional IR fluxes should read their works very carefully: that is only true in a vacuum. The modellers must go back to the beginning!"
So incandescent a balloonfull of hot air deserves a Tole cartoon of its own.
There really is something far more interesting going on than just the same old con. And that would be the same old political delusion. It's all about the hubris.
The alarmist idea that the problem is simply one of communication because the policy is obviously correct is not confined to the global warming scam. Pointman's blog post on the global warming con (that he linked early in this comment thread) could be written the same way about all manner of left-wing political cons. After all global warming is all about politics. And just one issue in the toolbox of the Left's politics. Go read Pointman's blog and substitute any one of a number of other issues. Same con, different hook.
It's more interesting to look beyond the con. Look at the arrogance and hubris which highlight the whole 'communication' argument. Examine the lack of self-awareness. Behold the utter cluelessness of people who are so smug in their beliefs that they truly cannot grasp the possibility of error.
In the USA, this notion that communication must be the problem has a long history in our politics. One example -- Thomas Frank and "What's the Matter with Kansas". He argued that since left-wing policies are CLEARLY in the best interests of everyone save the filthy rich, what could possibly explain why so many of the non-rich are so stupid that they keep voting for the Republicans and against their own best interests. Must be that lefties are just doing a bad job of communicating to the stupid unwashed. Evil people are distracting the unwashed from listening to the message of the Left. (sound familiar?)
Or see Obama's explanation of why they didn't vote for him -- They're angry and bitter, so they cling to their guns and religion. In the USA, no sensible person could disagree with Obama. If they do, they must be racist.
Any disagreement from standard Left catechism can only be explained by hatred, stupidity or ignorance. This is the only approved explanation. So naturally, better communication has to be the way forward. If they can only cure the ignorant of their lack of understanding, the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see.
The reason we keep seeing this silliness about the need to communicate the message better in the global warming debate is that we see it in every other part of the political debate. At least here in the US. It all flows from the notion that no intelligent person could disagree. The truth is known. The Left is the truth. It's settled. Always. If the rubes don't agree, it must mean that the message hasn't been presented to them properly. Because once people really understand, rational disagreement is impossible.
Hubris really isn't adequate to describe this mindset. I'm sure there must be some psych term which better describes the psychosis.
So if I start an environmentalist charity called .... erm .... Frosty McFrost, the more money people give me the cooler the planet will get … (Arthur Foxake).
=======================================
Well it could certainly be made to appear to get cooler, no problem.
If Gav and Michael rotated their frame into a vertical position and repositioned it to the top-left corner you can see that Michael would be telling us he has been practicing for his retirement employment(?)
I wonder what he would be like as a beautician? Data massage into face massage?
Gwen, he could probably shape your eyebrows into hockey sticks.
Ah, "the cause" - lest we forget, it's a religion.
May 9, 2016 at 9:21 PM | stan
Yes.That's right.
But the key here is that "better communication" means openly and honestly debating the merits and weaknesses of your case and testing your assumptions.
Then, when you win the debate, you have either persuaded your opponents or they are truly thick (or self-interested in not noticing the truth).
Of course, if you lose the debate then you too need to change your assumptions.
Now AGW is different. Because the one thing that the believers will not do is debate. Unlike on the left where ideological talking shops dominate every meeting - Greens will not debate.
Green is not Red.
Cheer up, golfcharlie: immortality awaits you when the blob kickstarts the Steadman Skeptical Critters Calender.
It is just possible we have reached peak stupid:
https://twitter.com/OrenKessler/status/730045233086500865/photo/1
A hard climb, but Insh'Allah, we may be there.
The data from weather stations shows no long term change in precipitation patterns.
"Stations experiencing low, moderate and heavy annual precipitation did not show very different precipitation trends. This indicates deserts or jungles are neither expanding nor shrinking due to changes in precipitation patterns. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some caution is warranted about claiming that large changes to global precipitation have occurred during the last 150 years."
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/data-vs-models-2-droughts-and-floods/
The comment above was meant for the drought post. It only pertains here because no climate change is discernible from precipitation change. One more case of data contradicting the alarmist claims.