Here’s a presentation by the past Chairman of the American Solar Energy Industry, Armageddonist Chuck Kutscher, another person who can only be happy if he’s convinced the future is filled with doom and gloom.
h/t: Chris Smith
This is Al Gore repackaged. This is really a sorrowful, populist presentation. How did Kutscher get a PhD! We will redebunk this point by point.
It’s getting late – and I’ve watched the first half. Will finish tomorrow.
I can tell you right now that Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s new book Die kalte Sonne, using the latest data and peer-reviewed literature, completely demolishes every single point Kutscher makes. Sheesh – Kutscher is still stuck on TSI!
I can’t believe there are so many gullible suckers out there like Chris taking this crap in hook, line and sinker.
Debunking the presentation:
1. 4:30 mark – “Well-heeled misinformation campaign.” That’s bogus. Most of the doubt arises from privately run blogs with little or no money (Climate Audit, WUWT, etc.) and a rapidly growing number of skeptical scientists who are finding loads of flaws in the science. From time to time some media outlets are reporting on this. Public observation has also failed to detect the occurrence of any of the horror predictions. The warmist movement on the other hand is funded by billions.
2. 5:00 mark – “Climategate e-mails show the scientists wanted to get the message out.” Oh, that’s why they defied the requirements of thr FOIA and refused to make the data public. Read The Hockey Stick Illusion
3. 5:30 mark – “Independent panels exonnerated the Climategate scientists.” It’s proven that these were whitewashes led by warmist hacks. McIntyre has gone through all that.
4. 9:15 mark – “Mann’s hockey stick was fundamentally correct.” The national Academy of Sciences said Mann’s hockey stick was rubbish. The new ones that were made to replace it were also shown by McIntyre to be flawed as well. Don’t worry, we will go back and dig it all up again. The 2007 IPCC report did drop it. The one they depicted on page 457 was buried under the updated ones, which brought back the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Here’s the IPCC hockey stick history.
1990 IPCC chart
Figure 1: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
IPCC 2001 - having gotten rid of the MWP. Orwellian rewrite of history.
Figure 2: www.martinfrost.climategate. Here they spliced thermometer data after 1960.
Moberg 2005. After 2005, science rediscovers the Medeival Warm Period!
Figure 3: p. 123 of “Die kalte Sonne”
[Drafting the remainder of this post is in progress and will be completed as time permits (debunking volumes of errors entails a proportionate amount of time, unfortunately). -PG]
I’ll play Devil’s advocate.
1. “well-heeled misinformation campaign.” Because they do what they do for big money, they can’t imagine us doing what we do for NO money. We MUST be in the pay of “big oil” or somebody. In their minds there is no other explanation.
2. 5:00 mark – “Climategate e-mails show the scientists wanted to get the message out.” He means the message about CAGW. He doesn’t mean the truth!
3. 5:30 mark – “independent panels exonnerated the Climategate scientists.” In the same sense as the Pal-reviews done by “the Team.”
4. 9:15 mark – “Mann’s hockey stick was fundamentally correct.” His definition of fundamentally is “more than 50%.” because of the size of Mann’s error bars, he might be correct. Still not even a bad basis for tearing down the world economy.
5. 10.50 mark “The weight of the IPCC report.” What does it weigh when printed out, double-sided, on standard printer paper? You must take these guys literally.
OT/
Can someone explain this to me? I read something about that at Watts blog, but didn´t understand it.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/vertrauliche-akten-veroeffentlicht-die-geldquellen-der-klimaskeptiker-1.1287309
Regards
Ike
A person has gotten hold of board meeting memos of the Heartland Institute by phoning the Institute, telling them he was a member of the board but had a new e-mail account and requested the memos send there. Simple Social Engineering.
His intention was to uncover the evil workings of the Climate Denial conspiracy. What he got were pretty boring memos showing the ordinary workings… some donors give money, some projects get the money…
So he added a faked document , scanned it on an EPSON scanner, and gave it all to DeSmogBlog and ThinkProgress and a few others.
The faked document is a “Strategic Donfidential Memo” of quite laughable quality. People suspect Peter Gleick (the text in that memo says something like “we have to attack important climate scientists (such as Peter Gleick)”…
I mean, NOBODY thinks Peter Gleick is important…
Here’s an article by Kaminsky of the Heartland Institute detailing their position on it.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/17/theft-and-apparent-forgery-of
Leftists like Richard Black, Mother Jones, NYT’s Revkin are backpedalling from their early claims of victory like you don’t know. Never seen them panicking like that. Amusing. They will SO ostracize DeSmogBlog.
“Confidential” not “Donfidential”….
The Sueddeutsche does the usual leftist thing. Mentions Koch Brothers but suppresses the information that Koch gave only 25,000 USD in one year, explicitly for a Healthcare related project. Sueddeutsche does not give the full information but pretends to do so; pseudojournalism, much like Der Spiegel. It is as important what is not said as what it is said by these pieces of slime.
I tried to post the transcription of a section, but it doesn’t appear. Question of length? [Sorry – spam filter. Problem fixed! -PG]
Try again.
A co-operative effort to transcribe this nonsense is an excellent idea. The reason warmists use live presentations so much in their propaganda is that you miss the slippery logic with the spoken word.
I tried to get others to join in a cooperative effort to transcribe John Abraham’s 80 minute “destruction” of Monckton when it was being touted at the Guardian – to no avail.
Alex Cull does a great job transcribing material at
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home
and would no doubt put this up.
Short quotes don’t give the full depressing flavour. Here’s 4 minutes from 4’41”. If anyone else feels like giving a hand, indicate where you’re starting so we don’t overlap.
4:41 So you might remember Climategate, OK, that was when these mails were hacked from these scientists at the Climatic Research Unit in England, and it was all over the Internet, and you saw all sorts of news, and even the term Climategate, what does that evoke? I’m old enough to remember the Watergate, and Watergate was not really so much about a burglary, a small time burglary, it was really about a big coverup, that’s the kind of image that Watergate evokes, and that’s the kind of image they want you to think of when you think of Climategate. “These scientists, you know, they’re keeping to themselves the real truth, in fact they know it’s a hoax”. What those emails really revealed in fact is that scientists are very very frustrated. “How do we get the truth out to these people?” They’re frustrated that the data will be misused. That’s what you see when you read those emails.
But there was all sorts of news about Climategate, but then this was investigated, actually by six different panels altogether, I’m going to show you the results of three of them. You didn’t see this in the news. This happened in England. But first the British Parliament Science and Technology Committee reviewed all these hacked emails and concluded in March 31st 2010 “The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus.” That was followed up by Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel April 14th “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Clmatic research Unit” and finally a panel on July 7, again, a totallly independent panel concluded: “We find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” This did not make the news. You didn’t see this in the news.
Well I’m going to encourage you to read these books. If you want to know what’s going on with this misinformation campaign “Climate Coverup” by James Hoggan, he’s a public relations expert, and then Naomi Oreskes and her co-author wrote “Merchants of Doubt”, and “Merchants of Doubt”, what it really does is it goes through the whole history of these misinformation campaigns, starting with DDT and tobacco and going through all these different things. The common denominator as these authors point out, is the fact that there are many people that feel very strongly about a free capitalistic market, and so are very against anything that hints of government regulation. So that’s sort of the common denominator, whether it’s banning cigarettes, whether it’s putting warnings on cigarette packs, banning DDT, putting a price on carbon, these involve government regulation, they’re people very very opposed to that, and as these authors point out, that is the common denominator.
7:20 OK, so what I’m gonna do is go through some of the sceptic arguments. Now there’s one rural electric (?) co-op in Colorado that has actually invested a lot of money and time and effort into going around the state, giving presentations on, on, making the point that climate change is a big hoax, you don’t need to worry about it, so I drew a lot of these arguments from their slide show, but also a few others as well.
Ok, so here’s one of them. And you may think of a couple of different categories here. One category is “Climate change, you know, it’s not happening”. That’s one of the arguments. Well, if that doesn’t work they fall back on “Well, yeah, OK, it’s happening, but we’re not causing it” and I think, you know, the previous speaker, Caspar, did a great job of explaining, you know, human fingerprints, but I’m going to go into that as well.
So in this first category, “Climate change isn’t happening” they make the point it was warmer during the Mediaeval Warm Period, and also “the IPCC has dropped Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve” that curve that shows a sudden increase in temperature in our century here, right? So here’s, I see this over and over again. What I really get a kick out of this curve, I don’t know if you can see it clearly enough, but here’s 1800 here’s 1900. It ends around 1950. So they don’t even show all the temperature rise. Remember how you saw in the previous graphs how the real impact of global warming has been in the last three decades? That doesn’t even show up on to this plot that makes it all over the internet as evidence that “look it was all that warmer back in the Mediaeval Warm Period”.
But again there was a lot of debate about this Michael Mann’s hockey stick, people didn’t like that. OK, so what’s the scientific reality here?
Thanks for all the transcription work. Certainly can be useful. Kutscher was slippery throughout the presentation. But I’m more interested in the rebuttal to his points.
22:10 “When they ran the models without the man made effects, they got the blue line. They could only reproduce the 20th century when they included the man made effects.” Logical fallacy. The models they used were developed with specific asummed historical forcings. Of course, when you then change one of these assumed time series, the outcome is different. So this “proof” is a tautology.