You probably saw a version of the tactic in an old Hollywood movie. You might have read about it in an elementary school history text. Settlers used it. Aboriginal people used it. But the earliest use I can track down is Genghis Khan, most likely the greatest general of all time, who used it almost 800 years ago.
For now we’ll call it the Mongol tactic.
Genghis worked it this way. He had his army set up camp outside a walled city. At night the army would light hundreds of campfires, most of them around dummy encampments, so that anyone looking out from the walls of the city would see campfires everywhere and presume a Mongol army much larger than the one that actually existed. Thus Genghis could win the psychological war on his enemy without risking a single casualty, and provoked concessions and easy victories from deceived and frightened opponents. With an army of 50,000 illiterate Mongols—trivial in the larger scheme of things—Genghis created the largest empire the world has ever known, and it was tactics like the above which allowed him to do it.
The climate denial camp is now using a similar tactic. To create an illusion of numbers, they recycle the same old deniers over and over again. But really, they aren’t many. It may seem that way sometimes, but actually, they’ve just built a lot of campfires. The Mongol hordes of medieval times have simply been replaced with a miscellaneous helter-skelter of climate deniers, who’ve got the oil and gas industry to build their fires for them.
Consider the following graph:
Fig. 1. Response distribution to survey question 2. The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
The graph is taken from a 2009 paper by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Illinois at Chicago, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” (EOS, Vol.90, No.3, 20 Jan. 2009)
The paper details a survey of earth scientists about the issue of climate change.
The authors of the paper invited a comprehensive list of 10,257 Earth scientists to participate which included “all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).”
3146 persons completed the survey, a 30.7% response rate, typical for surveys of that kind..
Ninety percent of participants were from US institutions, 6% from institutions in Canada, and 4% from institutions representing 21 other nations.
More than 90% of participants had Ph.Ds and 7% had master’s degrees.
Professionally “the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.”
The survey asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
90% of participants answered, yes, to “risen”, indicating that they thought that, yes, global temperatures have generally risen.
The survey asked:
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
82% of participants answered yes to question 2, meaning that they thought people and human activities were responsible for climate change.
So look again at the graph above.
The bar at the left under the “yes”, “no” and “not sure” categories represents US public opinion as measured in a 2008 survey. This is the least scientifically qualified category, by far.
The bar on the right represents specialist climate scientists publishing actively primarily in the field of climate science. This is the most scientifically qualified category, by far.
What the graph demonstrates—and as the authors of the paper conclude—is that the more active you are as a practicing scientist, and the more direct the connection is between your work and the scientific issues involved, then the more likely you are to agree that climate change is real and that human beings have caused it.
And the more ignorant you are, the more inactive you are as a scientist (if you are a scientist), and the further that your specialty is from climate science, then the greater are your chances of doubt.
But if you are a scientist at all, in the end, there really isn’t that much doubt. (Unless you are an economic geologist or a meteorologist, apparently.)
Significant doubt really only exists among the non-scientific public.
Bottom line—scientific doubt about climate change is a media and energy industry created myth.
The authors conclude:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
So to return to our Mongols.
Examined closely, there really aren’t that many, and they really aren’t that well armed.
There may be a lot of campfires, but the denier camp version of the Mongol horde could probably be routed by a Boy Scout troupe armed with BB guns and sling-shots.
————–
The full original study can be found here:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
The Gallup poll at:
(see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx).
Father Theo's Blog 
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 23, 2012
There has been too much fear created based on climate models that are not much more than smoke and mirrors. The IPCC has shown that they are all about creating alot of smoke where there is little fire. Lastly I would suggest that there is likely a correlation showing that the more one works/pubishes in a given field the more biased they are in their views.
fathertheo
October 23, 2012
The evidence for climate change doesn’t only come from climate models. There are multiple lines of evidence. There’s the melting of the Arctic sea ice, of glaciers worldwide. There’s rising temperatures and increasing extreme weather events worldwide. If you’ve been around for more than half a century, there’s evidence that you can glean from simply remembering when spring arrived every year in your youth. A couple of years ago we had a winter Olympics locally where they had to helicopter in snow to the mountaintops.
Despite the fact, Mr. Con, that the climate models are lot more accurate than you deniers are making out–except some of the models seem to underestimate problems a little–still no scientist is relying on them to tell them the climate is changing. They know that from all kinds of other evidence.
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 24, 2012
All future predictions are based on model assumptions. Please indicate what methodology you are using to test climate models. In other words show me evidence that you have even attempted to investigate or test the models. IPCC models would be fine. What are your parameters of falsification for the models, as science demands (remember this is science not religion). TIA.
Extreme weather was far worse in the past than today. for instance drought in the Southwest US exceeded 100 years in duration less than 1,000 years ago and multidecadal drought ocurred frequently. By far the worse drought recently in the US was in the 1950s.
Arctic sea ice has melted completely in summer often between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago. I have all the peer reviewed paper links if you’re interested. Yes there is warming but so what?
Lastly I do agree with you that skeptics are barely viable, underfunded and disorganized. They have almost no influence on the failure of things like cap and trade and green energy failures. It is funny to listen to those who blame them claim that skeptics have all this money and power. Those nightime campfires are actually lit by the alarmists who can’t stand the idea that they have failed against such a weak foe.
Turboblocke
October 23, 2012
Looks like one of the Mongols has paid a visit.
willard (@nevaudit)
October 24, 2012
Hello,
I’ve excerpted your model on my tumblog:
Hope you don’t mind.
I really like it!
Best,
w
PS: I stumbled upon your post because of the Planet3 shout-out.
fathertheo
October 24, 2012
No, I don’t mind at all. That Planet 3.0 link has sent a lot of folks my way–and welcome.
fathertheo
October 24, 2012
Actually, Mr. Con, no, predictions are not all based on models. They are also based on past behaviours and the laws of physics. If I predict that a dry piece of paper will catch fire if I put a match to it, I am not making a prediction on the basis of a model but on the basis of the fact that I’ve seen it happen before, over and over again. Paleoclimatic studies have shown a direct correlation between CO2 levels and climate over time. We can presume, since it also fits our direct laboratory understanding of greenhouse gases, that this correlation will continue to influence climate in the future. And all without resorting to models.
As for your statements about extreme weather, they’re incorrect in respect of any era in which human civilization has existed. What we are seeing now is far more extreme because it is happening on a planetary scale, it is happening at an unprecedented speed, and scientists cannot in fact find a natural precedent. There is nothing normal about what is happening to the climate. When events at this scale happened in the past, for instance, gigantic volcanic eruptions where massive amounts of CO2 were released into the atmosphere, the oceans acidified and Earth experienced mass extinctions. (Reference the Siberian Traps.)
And no, Mr. Con, I haven’t checked the models myself because I don’t pretend to be able to out-science the scientists. But they use models to design aircraft and I ride aircraft, so I’m willing to accept that scientists are capable of doing their jobs, even when they’re working with models.
As for the deniers crying poor, now we are truly entering fantasyland. Climate deniers are financed by Exxon/Mobil, the Koch Brothers, the US Chamber of Commerce and the whole Canadian tar sands industry. They have presidential candidates singing their tune–Mitt Romney. They have professional deniers as senior members of congress and the senate, and they’ve taken over the Canadian government entirely. Oh, yes, and I should mention Rupert Murdoch who has used his entire media empire, including the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to flog climate denial. Under-financed underdogs? Give me a break, Mr. Con.
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 29, 2012
You reveal your lack of scientific committment in this comment. Why would you accept unproven models when they are diverging from reality? If you know a model of a plane, to use your example, failed why would you get on board the prototype? Yet you blindly are on board with failing climate models. Do you have any idea about the amount of uncertainty that exists in many aspects of climate science? As for your misguided belief that current weather is worse than ever I suggest you contact Andy Revkin (I hope you find him to be politically acceptable) and ask him if there has been worse weather and storms during the rest of the Holocene period. Andy wrote a column about past storms and droughts on his Dot Earth Blog and he should be able to guide you in correcting you misperceptions. If that doesn’t float your boat I provide dozens of peer reviewed papers outlining 100+ year droughts around the world far worse than anything today as well as past storms, etc.
fathertheo
October 29, 2012
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The global climate that is happening now is unique in the last 20,000 years or so, nor is there any record anywhere that records the rate of climate change that we are experiencing now.
You also seem to have missed my main point: that my acceptance of the reality of climate change has very little to do with models. It’s the totality of the evidence, including the evidence of my senses. I can see climate change happening around me. It just happens that models fit the reality. That’s how models are verified, by the way. If they weren’t verifiable, they’d be as useless as a plane model that didn’t fly. But they fly, alas, they fly.
By the way, Revkin is a journalist. He can do no more than me, which is report on the scientific evidence. He produces no evidence himself. That’s to be found in the scientific literature, which I read daily. Perhaps you’d be advised to look at it yourself. Stay with peer reviewed (that is, away from non-peer reviewed journals like Energy and Environment, for instance) if you want reliable science.
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 29, 2012
There is a great deal of evidence that the rate of climate change was much greater in the past. For example:
“Temperatures spiked 22 degrees F in just 50 years, researchers say. Information gleaned from a Greenland ice core by an international science team shows that two huge Northern Hemisphere temperature spikes prior to the close of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago were tied to fundamental shifts in atmospheric circulation.
The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive “reorganization” of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news133107932.html#jCp
From a PNAS presentation evidence of numerous climate shifts of 10 degreesC in as little as a decade or two:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/land-bridge-caused-wild-temperature.html?ref=hp
Here is a new paper showing that preciptation changes have declined rather than increased with warming:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053369.shtml
Here’s more showing extremes to be worse in the past. Please read the whole article as it covers other parts of the world’s past extreme climate change that was worse than today:
“BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show.”
Here s the Harvard study on Arctic ice free summers during the early Holocene:
“We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
I base my view on facts contrary to your inaccurate suggestion that I don’t. My evidence is a paleocliamte record that exists before your existence. Where I live it has been getting cooler for the last 70 years so what you experience over your life as proof of rapid climate change is different than my geography. The state I live in does have a museum with an exhibition showing our climate history which included flooding so horrific 8,000 to 18,000 YBP, that the Mississippi River swelled to a width of 300 miles for long periods of time. Nothing has even come close in the 20th century. The scientific evidence for more extreme climate in the recent past that I have reviewed is overwhelming.
fathertheo
October 29, 2012
The trouble with your evidence is that none of it is global, so it doesn’t address the issue of global climate change. Unless you can show evidence of a consistent pattern over time and over the planet generally, you’ve proven nothing.
This is just a variation of the nonsense that says that if it isn’t warming in Topeka this year, then it can’t be happening.
For an example of a more global (and therefore more valid) look at the evidence, see the work of Michael Mann. You know, the “Hockey Stick.” This summary of the paleoclimatic evidence has been validated by no less than the US Academy of Sciences, perhaps the most prestigious body of scientists on the planet. It shows clearly that what is happening now is unprecedented.
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 30, 2012
Already read it and checked out dendro data. Ed Cook another dendro expert criticized Mann’s hockey stick work. The University of East Anglia has also published a new reconstruction which conflates with Mann’s Hockey stick after finding bias in a reanalysis of UEA’s data. As you can see past temperatures were just as warm as late 20th century. There are dozens of other studies around the world that are finding the same pattern of past temperatures being just as warm or warmer than late 20th century warming.
“We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.”
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract
fathertheo
October 30, 2012
You like Edward R. Cook as a contradiction to Mann. He says, in his tree-ring construction using much less information than Mann uses (14 sites versus thousands of data sets): “We also show that the MWP was likely to have been a large-scale phenomenon in the NH extratropics that appears to have approached, during certain intervals, the magnitude of 20th-century warming, at least up to 1990.”
The time of accelerated warming began in about 1979, meaning that the MWP, according to this study, may have been almost as warm as the first 11 years of the blade of hockey stick, but then fell behind over the following 22 years. I don’t see how this helps you, since Cook clearly indicates that current warming has been greater. Furthermore, he has to prove that his assumptions about his 14 proxy sites are correct, which is far from evident.
I notice also that Cook’s criticisms cite Mann’s earlier work. Why not address his 2007 reconstruction for the US Academy of Sciences? Or the report that the US Academy of Science did following Mann’s 1998 work which bring the reconstruction back 2000 years?
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 31, 2012
It is interesting that you point out that my information is not global. There is much more evidence that global events were worse in the past but even if I present it you’re not interested. Have you noticed though that events like Arctic ice melt is being pointed to as an indicator of a global problem? Remember a few months back how 2 month of drought in the Southwest USA was somehow proof of global warming. Even now idiots like Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg are suggesting hurricane Sandy is proof of global warming. So while there are plenty of people who mistake local or regional events as a sign of a global phenomenon I do try my best to look at hundreds of studies that indicate that past climate events have been worse than modern day events.
fathertheo
October 30, 2012
Of course, there is another issue inherent in the idea of whether there was a strong Medieval Warm Period or not, and that has to do with climate sensitivities. If the MWP was as extreme as you deniers insist, that must mean that climate sensitivity is high, meaning that the urgency to cut back on carbon use becomes even greater. If in fact, Dr. Cook has demonstrated a strong MWP, that’s bad news for today’s climate; it means the worst case scenario in terms of extreme warming is much more likely.
Genghis "Climate" Con
October 31, 2012
A scientist considers all possibilities and one that you haven’t considered is that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than first thought and that other factors are driving warming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603
You will eventually learn that uncertainties in climate science have been increasing not decreasing which is not a positive sign and creates larger challenges in trying to determine what action should be taken. The IPCC demanded greater certainty after the release of their 2007 AR4 report and that isn’t happening. As a result more and more countries are backing away from any serious committment on CO2 reduction.
fathertheo
November 1, 2012
A scientist also knows that there is only one science, that all science follows the same rules, and that it is always based on the evidence. Science is always reproducible, and must be capable of being proved or disproved. The science which backs up the theory of anthropogenic climate change as presented by the IPCC fits these criteria. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” has been replicated over and over again by different teams of scientists using different data and different methods.
If, as you say, something other than CO2 is driving warming, make your case. Show your replicated evidence. You haven’t yet provided a single bit of science or data that contradicts the consensus view on climate change. You haven’t nominated even one other process to explain the evidence.
You claim to be scientific but you have yet to provide proof that you even understand what that means.
fathertheo
October 31, 2012
The following quote is from Michael Mann’s 1999 study: “Although NH [Northern Hemisphere] reconstructions prior to about AD 1400 exhibit expanded uncertainties, several important conclusions are still possible. While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20th century levels, the late 20th century still appears anomalous: the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.”
As this quote makes clear, there is nothing in Cook’s study that contradicts Mann’s conclusions about the 1990s being the warmest decade in a millennium. Cook, in fact, explicitly agrees. Does this mean that you agree also, Mr. Con, since you already said that you like Cook’s work?