Postmortem on Warmism

We are always moving leftwards, but not every leftwards program succeeds. Should one fail, they try something different.

I have not published much on warmism lately, because they were defeated by Climategate, even though every academic institution, every government institution, and every group of organized scientists swore fealty to Warmism, officially proclaimed that Climategate was no big deal, and have been trying to carry on as if Climategate was no big deal. But now they are subsiding, so time for a post mortem on the warmist movement, which has pretty much gone the way of the communist movement, where fans of the proletariat have shrunk down to few little academic circles holding reality at bay from behind their little Berlin walls, while the rest of the communist movement substitute females and minorities for the proletariat, and continue business as usual.

The driving force of the left singularity is that deviation from orthodoxy to the right gets the most extraordinary punishment for trivial or nonexistent sins, but deviation to the left is at most very gently restrained, even when the leftists commit gross crimes in the service of their ideal.

Nonetheless, today warmists are being gently restrained from committing their worst offenses, today warmism is a leftwards deviation from current left orthodoxy. They can no longer endlessly republish their grossest frauds over and over again as they used to be able to..

  1. In Australia, Climategate caused Tony Abbot to become leader of the opposition.
  2. Tony Abbot prevented Australia from implementing Copenhagen.
  3. Australia refusing to implement Copenhagen led to China refusing to implement Copenhagen.
  4. China refusing to implement Copenhagen killed Copenhagen.
  5. And, in retrospect, it is apparent that the failure of Copenhagen to implement a terrorist world government of artificial famine was not merely a temporary setback for Warmism, but its death knell.

After seven years of fruitless struggle against truth and reality, in 2012 October, the scientific establishment quietly decided that no further hockey sticks shall be published or publishable, and quietly conceded that the medieval climatic optimum happened.

The warmists use a statistical method that amounts to cherry picking the data, while obscuring the fact that one is cherry picking, perhaps obscuring it from oneself. One weights the data in proportion to how much it agrees with one’s hypothesis, a technique that since the dawn of the science of statistical methods has long been notorious for generating whatever results one desires.

Sometime in 2012 every science journal everywhere suddenly decided it would no longer allow the warmists to get away with using this method, which being at the core of warmism, was becoming increasingly notorious.

And so, naturally, the warmists proceeded to piously claim that they were no longer using this method.

Gergis, Karoly and Mann generated their usual hockey stick by their usual methods, while, naturally, denying that they were using this method. Jean S. on McIntyre’s blog pointed out that they had to be “mistaken”, because, obviously, the data as a whole does not support the hockey stick or Warmism. McIntyre and company made a freedom of information request for their data, data which according to the unwritten rules of science, and the written rules of the major scientific journals, should have been freely available.

One of relevant universities complied fully and swiftly with the spirit and intent of the freedom of information laws, possibly because it lived in well founded fear of Tony Abbot getting charge of their budget. The information revealed that the authors of the paper were lying mistaken.

Journal of Climate editor Chiang wrote:

After consulting with the Chief Editor, I have decided to rescind acceptance of the paper- you’ll receive an official email from J Climate to this effect as soon as we figure out how it should be properly done. I believe the EOR has already been taken down.

So, as of 2012 October, no more hockey stick, and, as of 2012 October, Medieval Climatic Optimum reinstated.

Today Warmism is only orthodoxy in the sense that communism is orthodoxy – that it is always safe to be leftwards of the official doctrine, and always dangerous to criticize those to the left of official doctrine, for they uphold a higher, purer, and more extreme version of the official doctrine, thus any such criticism leads to one being suspected as a critic of the official doctrine, rather than defender of the official doctrine.  (Hence the obscure and diplomatic way in which the paper was unaccepted.)

It is still hazardous to be antiwarmist, as it is hazardous to be anticommunist, but Warmism is no longer official truth.  It is officially incorrect.

9 Responses to “Postmortem on Warmism”

  1. Bill says:

    I’m a little skeptical. both about the cause of the decline of warmism and about its future prospects. The decline has also to do with the miserable failure of the temperature forecasts, not just with the comical fraud of the Hockey Team. And this is as it should be. Failed prediction = incorrect theory.

    But temperature could turn up again at any time. We don’t really understand climate, so they could always be rescued by whatever mysterious process is actually driving it. I suspect ten years of rising temperatures would do wonders to rehabilitate warmism. Then, they would just have to come up with some ad hoc explanation for the 1997-2012 pause. They have done this before, in the case of the 1945-65 temperature decline. I suspect they would just use the same ad hoc explanation: “We didn’t realize how big a deal those Chinese particulates were!!”

    • Thales says:

      Well, we can rule-out CO2 as a driver of temperature, since from this data

      we see that temperature drives CO2 accordingly: ?CO2 = k*(T–T0), where k is some constant and T0 some equalibrium condition. It’s simply a function of temperature. Human inputs, if any, must be rapidly sequestered, and the entiere theory of some CO2 positive-feedback loop is utter rubbish.

      • Mike Mellor says:

        Thales I’m sorry I have to contradict you but the greenhouse effect is good physics.

        But from a different point of view you are totally RIGHT. In three years time when global cooling sets in, the imbeciles will suddenly change their minds and tell us that we must make more CO2 to save the planet. They will hit us with huge taxes and subsidies to build 1,000 new coal power stations, and now for the punchline. They will find that the increased CO2 DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. Compared to water vapor, the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is insignificant.

  2. Global cooling, if true, would be much more a cause for concern. But, presumably, it wouldn’t fit very well into the Rich People Screwing Up the World And We’d Better Repent Before Judgement Day narrative. If not, then global cooling would make an unlikely cudgel, and would be therefore more likely to be true.

  3. Carl says:

    Global warming will go in the same memory hole that global cooling did after the 70s. Although maybe the circle will come round and cooling will smoothly come back into fashion in the next decade or so.

  4. Mike says:

    I imagine thirty years from now the official line will be that global warming was a scam by rich merchant bankers to impoverish the third world, or something like that.

  5. Samson J. says:

    but Warmism is no longer official truth. It is officially incorrect.

    Well, there’s some hope then, eh!

    • Chen says:

      There is nothing that can filasfy the theory of those who advocate global warming. If there is a cold winter (or event) then this is evidence of global warming. (see PC’s update 2) If there is a warm event in one part of the world, then this is evidence for their theory. And no what happens to the temperatures, it does not matter, for the precautionary principle will be used to justify their policy program.I ask any advocate of the theory of AGW, please tell me what would constitute evidence against the theory you promote and would thereby lead you to regard that theory as incorrect?Julian

Leave a Reply