I’ve just come across a new climate website, the “Climate Change National Forum“.
The idea is introduced here by John Nielsen-Gammon, who previously I had regarded as one of the more sensible climate scientists.
Apparently this is a new idea, to ‘develop a home’ for expert discussions to ‘educate the American public about climate change’, and he is not aware of any existing sites ‘that fit that bill’. How he thinks his site is going to be any different from all the others is a mystery. He claims he’s trying to create a site that both ends of the spectrum can trust. But in the comments section below, he write“Real Climate is the best, and closest to what we’re doing,” (I’m not making this up, he really does say this!) though he does acknowledge that Realclimate has a ‘tainted reputation’. He even claims that “Skeptical Science’s science is very high quality”. It looks like it’s going to be just another of those sites churning out global warming propaganda while pretending to be balanced.
Looking at the website of the new forum the first thing you notice is the pictures at the top. These include a graphic of the bogus 97% claim by the notorious John Cook, and an article from the only marginally more reliable activist scientist Katharine Hayhoe, hiding the decline in warming by saying that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. There’s also a couple of silly comments from a Fox News reporter. A piece by Bart Verheggen describes Gavin Schmidt’s AGU talk as “fantastic” while Judith Curry’s was apparently “off-base”. Now, JNG himself has written another article criticising Curry, just to show how balanced the site is. This is similar to what Roger Pielke calls “Stealth advocacy” – claiming to provide a balanced assessment of the facts while in fact promoting one particular viewpoint.
Why start off with Cook’s 97% and Fox News? It’s almost as if they are determined to alienate everybody.
Who do they think they are kidding?