Neverending Audit

There are so many ways to state it:

Simply CAGW alarmism.

Or, because of CAGW alarmism, X. Or, CAGW alarmism is obviously caused by Y. Or, that just proves that CAGW alarmism is Z. Or else.

Please continue. CAGW alarmism is so much interesting.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Tom C,

Thank you for answering one of the three questions I asked.

Sadly, your answer only asserts what you believe. There is no justification, no evidence, only some kind of proof by assertion. It would be interesting to know why you think that Steve’s not doing a political hit job at CA.

There are lots of claims in #581. Susbtantiating these claims should take some time to do, more so for a guy that works as much as you do. Take your:

> There is substantial evidence that the WMP was not confined to a portion of the nothern hemisphere.

That must mean you did study that question. You read papers about that. Perhaps you collected data and ran some code too?

And there’s also this other claim:

> I also find it highly implausible that a local climate abberation would persist for some 200-300 years.

Now, is that an argument? Sounds like one. If that’s an argument, you read it somewhere, perhaps. Where?

And then we get to this:

> The existence of the MWP does not argue against current warming being anthropogenic in origin. It does argue against alarm.

I’m not sure how the existence of the MWP (which I don’t think is being questioned by Overpeck, by the way, only the myths about it) argues against alarm. Would you expand on that line of reasoning?

But I sure am hearing you loud and clear why you think all this vocabulary business matters:

> [I]f you are promoting alarm, it must be “gotten rid of”, “dealt a mortal blow” etc.

So that was the point of Deming’s quote, ain’t it?

Now, what I find interesting that what you’re claiming here is never stated on CA, and only dogwhistled. By chance Big Dog can rely on Me Toos like you.

In any case, maybe all this is a vocabulary thing. So let’s make make sure we do agree about the meaning of the term “political hit job”. Here’s an instance that some found a political hit job against [Judith Curry, not Stephan Lewandowsky].

http://init.planet3.org/2010/10/judith-curry-born-beyond-shark.html

Do you think this is a political hit job? Why?

And since you do seem to believe that L’s study is a political job, why? You have read it, I presume. And ran its code. And reached your conclusion independently from anything that was said.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps your work prevents you from paying any kind of due diligence. Perhaps you don’t have the time to justify any your claims in #581 and to answer my questions. Perhaps your job is only to play the Knight of Ni game while inserting the appropriate words and the appropriate memes, after all.

I don’t understand why word placement specialists waste their time using ad hominems like you do. After all, its motivational effect goes against their very lines of business.

I thought that Convervative mind framers were more disciplined. Maybe that’s just a myth that ought to be destroyed too.

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

[**In The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America, Franz Lunz knows Words that Work. Here is the outline of a PR strategy: **]

WINNING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE – AN OVERVIEW

Please keep in mind the following communication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto.

The scientific debate remains open.  Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
Americans want a free and open discussion.  Even though Democrats savaged President Bush for formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, the truth is that none of them would have actually voted to ratify the treaty, and they were all glad to see it die. Emphasise the importance of “acting only with all the facts in hand”  and “making the right decision, not the quick decision.”
Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides.  Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack their us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasise how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

[…]

The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science. Americans unanimously believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense. […]

The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. Americans believe that all the strange weather that was associated with El Niño had something to do with global warming, and there is little you can do to convince them otherwise. However, only a handful of people believes the science of global warming is a closed question. Most Americans want more information so they can make an informed decision. It is our job to provide that information. LANGUAGE THAT WORKS

We must not rush to judgement before all the facts are in. We need to ask more questions. We deserve more answers. And until we learn more, we should not commit America to any international document that handcuffs us either now or into the future.

You need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view, and much more active in making them part of your message. People are willing to trust scientists, engineers, and other leading research professionals, and less willing to trust politicians. […] WORDS THAT WORK

Scientists can extrapolate all kinds of things from today’s data, but that doesn’t tell us anything about tomorrow’s world. You can’t look back a million years and say that proves that we’re heating the globe now hotter than its ever been. After all, just 20 years ago scientists were worried about a new Ice Age.

[…]

CONCLUSION: REDEFINING LABELS […] We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism”. It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”.  As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
We should be “conservationists,” not “preservationists” or “environmentalists.”  The term “conservationist” has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. [...]

(Source: lightbucket.wordpress.com)