Henry Payne, one step away from typing climate change posts in all caps

by: Eric B.

Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 09:49:25 AM EDT

Henry Payne believes that climate change is a plot thought up by a global cabal of bureaucrats and scientists intended to take away your freedoms and install a one-world government whose goal is to make the human world a communist one. He's also been known to occasionally draw cartoons in the dead of winter of people doing things in the snow asking each other about global warming, as if the fact that it snows in winter is proof positive of all this. "TAKE THAT!" you can almost hear him shouting at him sketch pad, or his computer screen, or wherever it is that paranoid cartoonists do their work.

Today he shouts at Seth Borenstein, an Associated Press writer most commonly associated with stories about science. By way of that, we learn that the global conspiracy to create a communist world now includes an insidious terrorist organization called SPECTRE the Associated Press.

"If you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, scientists suggest taking a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks," wrote Borenstein, exploiting the warm weather to advance his political agenda (see more from Brother Lopez nearby). The "vast majority of mainstream climate scientists" agree, he says.

If you're nearly as curious as I was yesterday to see what "Brother Lopez" had to say on it, by all means stop reading and follow the link. If you're interested only in the Clif Notes version, here goes: By refusing to report that climate change is a global, communist plot by scientists and government bureaucrats, the Associated Press has tipped its hand that it is in on it. His proof? The one "skeptic" they interviewed is confined to the end of the article, where presumably no one but those who believe that all stories end with "The butler did it" will still be hanging around.

Who is that skeptic, by the way? One John Christy, who is indeed a respected climate scientists and a genuine skeptic. Here's what he has to say.

While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He's a global warming skeptic who says, "The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature."

In other words, among the 15 climate scientists who said that it is an accurate statement that the extreme heat and storms we've seen are the sorts of phenomenon you'd expect from global warming was someone who said that he doesn't think human activity is responsible. He thinks it's natural variability.

Over at the original, where Henry Payne references in his piece "Media-made global warming" "Brother Lopez's" scratchings that because the AP interviewed 15 climate scientists and found only one skeptic, and he of the opinion that the phenomenon is real but natural, the AP is clearly a communist outfit, we read between the lines. The problem is that the AP didn't go out and interview 15 real-er climate scientists after reporting the other 15 to the appropriate federal agency for disloyalty.

Multiple surveys over the last few decades have found no scientific consensus whether man is warming the climate. Most recently, a review of two surveys by the Heartland Institute (always a reliable source of information ~ EB), for example, found that "scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate."

This split is based on surveys of climate scientists by a pair of German scientists that were interpreted by the Heartland, but explained by one of the scientists thusly.

... Back to attribution: About 85% of the respondents tend to think to some degree (more yes than no) that climate change could be attributed to anthropogenic causes. However, only about 35% expressed the maximum possible level of certainty. Does this mean that 65% should be labeled skeptics? Or should the 11% that tended towards favouring doubt be the ones to be labeled skeptics? Or should we have 11% skeptics, 55% healthy science skeptics and 35% non-skeptics? Which brings us back to definition and measurement.

And, if you can't find a more even split than 85-15, we'll have to all turn in our secret decoder rings and re-read Das Kapital.