by Michael Asten
I have decided to reject the submission based on the significant scientific consensus regarding the question of human-induced climate change. – Eos editor
After reading in the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) newspaper Eos, (4 Feb 2014, here ) an oddly emotional account of a recent unexceptional and unquestioning film on climate change consensus science, I penned a Forum article for Eos.
According to the Eos guidelines:
Forum contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in the disciplines covered by AGU (especially scientific controversies), the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization.
The text of the Forum essay that I submitted can be found [here EOSforumSubmission]. I proposed via the article to have a forum where scientists, especially graduate students, could offer a personal summary view of a data set of particular interest, relating to an aspect of climate sensitivity, global temperature change, sea-level change and associated indications of anthropogenically driven or natural variation. A brainstorming of ideas if you will, with the essential criterion that each must be founded on a credible data set. Or in the language of the AGUs mission statement, it would be a forum for a diversity of scientific ideas and approaches.
I fear I caused some consternation in the inner sanctums of our peak geophysical body; it took six weeks for the Editor in Chief to assign an editor and another 6 weeks to produce a decision (and this, for a weekly newspaper).
The text from the Editor’s letter to me is appended below. The Editor stated that the decision is “reject” because “climate change ….is no longer a topic of scientific controversy. ”
It is slightly ironic that such a blinkered response, contrary to AGUs mission statement of “open exchange of ideas… diversity of background, scientific approaches” , should come at the same time as we have news of the outpouring of bile at Lennart Bengtsson [here and here] , and of the University of Queensland threats of legal action to suppress further analysis of Peter Cook’s (“97% consensus”) paper.
The decision was also disappointing in that it was based on the Editor’s “discussion with colleagues and staff” (no reviewer was ever assigned). The decision was however in keeping with past AGU actions such as that of refusing to publish the dissenting view from within its own expert committee which prepared its recently updated position statement on climate change (the dissenting view was by AGU Fellow Roger Pielke Sr, and was published at Climate Etc. here)
Unlike the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, AGU does not see value in publishing diverse or dissenting views.
The central point of my article argued for a forum of ideas designed to stimulate use of data and independent thought among students, and to encourage recognition of the complexity of the topic. However apparently our student population is composed of fragile folk who should not be exposed to controversy – a pity, because presenting science as an unarguable “consensus” is quite counter-productive to inspiring young scientists’ curiosity.
It is also sad that the AGU has adopted the closed-mind approach, while in comparison the American Physical Society has sponsored a day of frank presentation [link to previous Climate Etc. post on this], argument and discussion on the same topic, calling on three scientists from the anthropogenic global warming consensus, and another three who in various ways question some of the assumptions or conclusions of that consensus (one being AGU Fellow Judith Curry). The proceedings of this meeting are [here]. They contain verbatim the six presentations, plus 106 pages of following discussion. It seems strange that the APS Committee of Experts could find room to debate data and interpretation, calmly and objectively, while AGUs editorial circle of colleagues and staff cannot countenance our graduate students doing the same.
Below is the text of the letter that I received from an editor at Eos:
From: eos@agu.or
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:52 AM
To:michael.asten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Eos 2014ES004601 Decision Letter
Dear Dr. Asten:
Thank you for approaching Eos as a possible outlet for a Forum piece entitled “Ideas and diversity in climate science – and a challenge to students” (manuscript 2014ES004601). I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.
After thoughtful and lengthy consultation with colleagues and AGU staff, I have decided to reject the submission based on the significant scientific consensus regarding the question of human-induced climate change. While discussion of this topic continues, it is no longer a topic of scientific controversy.
There is an extensive body of scientific literature that supports the view highlighted in AGU’s position statement that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last fifty years.” The latest IPCC and NCA reports, which are based primarily on peer-reviewed research, (much of it published in AGU journals), echo these findings.
The core of your Forum proposal is that the opposing arguments about climate change “rarely appear in AGU commentaries.” I understand that you have a perspective that does not align with the consensus presented in AGU’s position statement, or the findings of the IPCC and NCA reports. While open debate is essential to success of scientific research, I respectfully recommend that peer-reviewed journals or scientific meetings are the best places to explore these differences, not the Eos Forum pages.
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding to your proposal.
Sincerely,
(name)
Editor, Eos
Biosketch: Michael Asten is a Professorial Fellow in the School of Geosciences at Monash University. Michael Asten recently wrote an op-ed in the Australian ; JoNova provides some excerpts.
JC comments: Without making a personal judgment regarding the merits of Asten’s proposal or the suitability of his article for Eos, there are two things here that greatly concern me.
The first is that the AGU Policy Statement on Climate Change is being used as a rationale for editorial decisions in AGU publications. My displeasure about the AGU policy statement on climate change is discussed in these two previous posts:
The letter from the Editor to Asten realizes my worst fear about the AGU statement on climate change: that it will be used as a basis for making editorial decisions to reject papers or to not even send them out for review.
The second is this statement: “I understand that you have a perspective that does not align with the consensus presented in AGU’s position statement.” There is nothing in Asten’s submitted essay that is overtly ‘skeptical’; rather he is arguing that AGU needs to facilitate a broader spectrum of scholarship and dialogue on this topic. However, if you google ‘Michael Asten’, he clearly shows up as a scientist that is skeptical of climate change. It seems that the Editor of Eos also did the same googling, identified Asten as a skeptic, which motivated the content of the Editor’s letter. So this was as much about the ‘person’ as about the content of Asten’s essay.
And finally, this isn’t just some naive, rogue editor. After all, the editor engaged in “thoughtful and lengthy consultation with colleagues and AGU staff”
I received the initial email from Michael Asten about this on May 16. With Asten’s permission, I forwarded his email to Peter Webster, who is President of the AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section and a member of the AGU Council. He asked me to hold off on a blog post, while he tried to get the AGU to deal with this issue internally. He sent emails to the AGU leadership, voicing his concerns about using the AGU policy statement as a basis for rejecting an article, and requesting permission to send an email to the Council voicing his concerns about AGU’s editorial policies in this regard. He was denied permission to communicate with the Council regarding this issue, and was told that he had no standing to communicate with the Eos editor over this matter since he was not an author on the paper in question. (note Peter Webster gave me permission to report on this interaction with the AGU leadership).
Apart from the extremely disturbing editorial process, the concerns raised in Asten’s essay are important ones – he is concerned that the scientific dialogue on climate change at the AGU is too narrow, and about the impact of this on graduate students and young scientists.
I am a member of the AGU, and am currently a member of the Fellows Committee that selects Fellows for the Atmospheric Sciences Section. In the near term, I will remain a member of the AGU and I am highly supportive of Peter Webster’s efforts to work within the organization to effect change. But I am increasingly conflicted about my membership in the AGU, with its irresponsible advocacy that is compromising its own core values.
Does AGU receive any federal funding such that we may write our representatives in congress asking to reduce it?
“Does AGU receive any federal funding such that we may write our representatives in congress asking to reduce it?”
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union
“The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 62,000 members from 144 countries. AGU’s activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.”
Here’s their stated dogma, no counter-arguments or data allowed. Such good science, no?
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
— AGU Council, Human Impacts on Climate
Actually, I have to amend what I said above about AGU funding. I can find nothing about it.
AGU get its $$ from membership dues, journal subscriptions, donations.
My latest analysis of the physics is that the atmosphere controls well-mixed GHG warming to exactly zero on average, and that the AGW we did have was from Asian aerosols reducing cloud albedo, the same mechanism that has, since the Last Glacial Maximum, raised the GHE from 2 to 11 K.
There is no CO2-AGW. There is no problem from CH4 up to its 50 ppmV self-absorption limit = 125 GT!
This is a non problem proven by nearly 18 years no atmospheric warming.
“My latest analysis of the physics is that the atmosphere controls well-mixed GHG warming to exactly zero on average…”
____
Where did you get you PhD from and what supercomputer platform are you using the make this analysis?
@R.Gates: (a) Imperial College, (b) No need for a supercomputer if you can go back to first principles which means you identify the IPCC’s perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, then correct it.
R. Gates | June 3, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
“My latest analysis of the physics is that the atmosphere controls well-mixed GHG warming to exactly zero on average…”
____
Where did you get you PhD from and what supercomputer platform are you using the make this analysis?
_________
Another symptom of the problem at hand. Perhaps we should define a new logical fallacy:
Appeal to supercomputing.
R. Gates: “what supercomputer platform are you using the make this analysis?”
No global warming for 18 years = no anthropogenic global warming.
Most of us don’t need a supercomputer platform to spot a failed hypothesis.
Funny, that.
R.Gates: ” what supercomputer platform are you [AlecM] using”
Perhaps it’s the one at the MET Office, which would certainly cast aspersions on his analysis.
per Richard Tol’s newly published paper, the Cook et al. 97% consensus has crashed and burned:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/tol-takes-on-cooks-97-consensus-claim-with-a-re-analysis-showing-the-claim-is-unfounded/
Tol believes there is a strong “consensus” but also believes the Cook et al. paper is incompetent.
> Tol believes […]
You might also like:
http://andrewgelman.com/2014/05/27/whole-fleet-gremlins-looking-carefully-richard-tols-twice-corrected-paper-economic-effects-climate-change/
My supercomputer is a massively parallel organic device between my ears. I also use a programmable calculator for when i run out of fingers and toes…….
It was cooler before 1998 and cooler after 1998. What happened in 1998? No one seems to know.
Nature pulled a bloody clever trick on the pseudo-scientists?
I don’t think much (or unprecedented) happened in 1998. Just an El Nino shortly before the multidecadal (~60 year) quasi-cycle peak, which actually happenned around 2005.
Illustaration:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:180/plot/rss/plot/rss/mean:180
You can remove 1998 and get this. Hope this helps.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend
I’d call the big transition between El Nino/La Nina in 1998/2001 a dragon-king.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
‘We develop the concept of “dragon-kings” corresponding to meaningful outliers, which are found to coexist with power laws in the distributions of event sizes under a broad range of conditions in a large variety of systems. These dragon-kings reveal the existence of mechanisms of self-organization that are not apparent otherwise from the distribution of their smaller siblings… We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of René Thom), or a
tipping point.’ Dragon-Kings, Black Swans and the Prediction of Crises – Didier Sornette
The phase change was established by 2002 in a big cloud change. Although it wandered back into mild warm mode for a few years. Not unusual.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif
Captured also in Project Earthshine.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=89
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
This is fun:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1950/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1998/to:2013/trend
Sun of a gun…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/to:1998/mean:12/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1998/mean:12/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1998/to:2013/trend
There you go, waggie, the pause was the sun all along. Now can we move on?
If the pause is the sun, what evidence is there that the warming is not also the sun?
The solar 10.7 flux has collapsed significantly during this rotation
http://www.nwra.com/spawx/f10_828725.gif
What the flux is going one…? What is the Sun telling us?
A correlation between global warming and humanity’s ever-increasing emissions of CO2 simply does not exist. America’s CO2 emissions have gone down. But, is Chinese CO2 different from American and European, Japanese, Indian, Brazilian and Russian CO2? Fears about humans causing global warming is not fact-based: it’s psycho-socially based. Something we don’t understand is going on with the weather that might result in decades more of a cooling trend. Why isn’t that a story?
Reblogged this on The Global 'Climate' and commented:
Supporting an open and free society
..but Exxon n Chevron sponsor their conferences…thats kinda funny fact.
Not sure why would anybody be so stupid as to associate themselves to present-day AGU.
Stunning. Thank you for exposing such a clear example of warmist censorship.
The article merely proposed a forum to debate the meaning of actual data sets! AGU cannot have that, since graduate students might discover the pause? Or that polar bear populations are not declining? Or that sea level rise is not accelerating? Or that the CMIP5 tropical troposphere hot spot does not exist?
How about the numbers aren’t/cannot be verified?
Andrew
And graduate students might discover that science has an empirical side. Can’t have that.
Try again with a suggestion of a forum devoted to CO2 and climate; on that topic, much is still unknown. The phrase “human induced” and other such phrases for climate change subsumes too much. Agriculture and deforestation affect climate – does anyone doubt that?- but they are mostly independent of CO2 (except for the important detail of whether CO2 will promote plant growth, which AGU may perceive as beyond its remit.)
And the black carbon [ soot] effect from the burning of wood, dung and other biomass in regional China, India and Asia , and forests in Brazil, is mostly ignored when it comes to attributing cause for any warming there is.
The Arctic and Antarctic ice have a blanket of soot, that cuts the reflectivity , causes heat to be absorbed, causes melting and sets up a feedback cycle that causes more warming and more melting , less reflective ice etc etc.
This is ‘human induced’— the now convenient term because it covers just about everything—but it’s not CO2—and that’s why they will never mention it even when asked—–IMO.
They don’t want attention on anything apart from CO2—especially if it’s more easily mitigated and with more immediate result.
That would be inconvenient, when the agenda is to alarm.
Fascist AGU. All they need now is a new logo.
Another example of blatent prejudice without merit.
The land of the “FREE” has turned into the land of the “BIASED”!
Absolutely reprehensible behavior that once again goes unchecked or formally challenged. When will someone stand up to these types of oppressive bullies and take them to court?
Is this not simply just another form of apartheid? Think about it……
ossqss, you write “When will someone stand up to these types of oppressive bullies and take them to court?”
I have been asking the same sort of question, ad nauseum . “Who is going to bell the cat?”
“take them to court”
I am dubious that this is going to accomplish anything.
Andrew
Jim
you should know better than to ask the mice.
Who do you ask Mosher? Who?
You see the erosion right in front of you. Who is the next target?
Perhaps it would be better to say, who is the next victim to surface?
ossqss…
The mainstream media is the key to it all, IMO.
In Australia, it’s compulsory for politicians to say they believe in CAGW.
Should they not comply, they are excoriated , ridiculed and demonized in the MSM–and the all-Left pollsters.
.Our new Prime Minister—elected nine months ago in a landslide—–had as his main policy for the election campaign–repealing our almost 25% across the board carbon tax, that has decimated the manufacturing and processing industries in Australia—-but is being blocked from doing so by our Senate ,dominated by the parties [ Greens and Labor] that introduced the carbon tax.
The almost 100% Left wing MSM of course backs the warmists and makes it almost impossible for any information other than alarmist to get to the people.
We have full-on suppression of freedom of speech on this and other subjects ‘owned’ by the Left.
Our PM is now on his way to the US via Europe for a meeting with Obama, who, we’re told, is very displeased about our PM’s intentions to repeal the carbon tax—as is that wonderful world citizen China.
During the talks— our MSM speculates—Obama will demand of our PM, [ very diplomatically of course], that he desist from such action and become a better world citizen, much like Obama himself.
The Left ‘owns’ every forum of discourse in Australia pretty much—blogging, except for one or two—newspapers except for the Murdoch papers—-all television—and they are the gatekeepers on Twitter, which they work very hard to maintain as a pristinely Leftist forum by blocking alternative views.
Only one or two very popular radio programs and their hosts escape the censorship instruments of the Australian Left.
There is no greater power in our country than the almost wall to wall Left wing media–they only know the CAGW side of this issue— and democracy is a meaningless concept to them
In the US Republican Party it is the opposite. Your prospects of staying with them are dim if you even think that there is a global warming problem that might need to be addressed. I think they have their own ways to enforce their 100% consensus, and free will isn’t tolerated.
Hopefully the slow trickle of doubters will grow and end up at a tipping point, and AGW will revert from “an established fact” to a mere hypothesis, just another forcing like volcanoes and solar. In the meantime, staying calm and rational is probably the best approach.
Judy, thanks for your courage and bringing this to the light. Please don’t get discouraged the data, observations and science will triumph!
Oh dear. Consensus police alert!
AGU isn’t spreading FUD!
AGU isn’t ‘fair and balanced’!
AGU isn’t sufficiently wishy-washy about the science!
Bile!
Suppression!
Warmist censorship!
This is worse than Salby!
This is worse than Bengtsson!
The conspiracy widens – again!
”
It is slightly ironic that such a blinkered response, contrary to AGUs mission statement of “open exchange of ideas… diversity of background, scientific approaches”
”
There is no irony.
“Scientific approaches” is key.
Concerns are noted.
Another data-set for Lewandowsky’s next study…
Jeb,
Referencing Lewandowski is a tell you don’t care about the science, just protecting the faith.
Rev, so do you think that Aston is part of the 3% or the 97%? It is starting to look to me like 70% of the 97% aren’t worthy of their percentages.
There is a lot of good science that seriously questions the sensitivity of our atmosphere to increased concentrations of CO2. Given the importance of that issue to the subject of anthropogenic climate change, for you and the AGU to consider such questions to be a-scientific is absurd.
More importantly, it fuels the fire. If all the own goals scored by members of the consensus, the debate would look much different.
When individuals such as Michael Mann,Peter Gleick and Stephan Lewnadowsky make fools of themselves, it is one thing. When organizations paint themselves into the dunce’s corner it is far worse.
I agree that humans have had an effect on climate and that part of that effect is caused by our emissions of CO2. Further, I believe strongly that our impacts will increase, primarily because of increased emissions. And this view is considered a-scientific because and only because my views on other related issues do not conform to the politically correct version of climate change.
If you all keep acting like idiots, someday someone will start to assume it’s because you are in fact idiots.
There is a lot of good science that seriously questions the sensitivity of our atmosphere to increased concentrations of CO2. Given the importance of that issue to the subject of anthropogenic climate change, for you and the AGU to consider such questions to be a-scientific is absurd.
More importantly, it fuels the fire. If all the own goals scored by members of the consensus were taken off the scoreboard, the debate would look much different.
When individuals such as Michael Mann,Peter Gleick and Stephan Lewnadowsky behave improperly, it is one thing. When organizations paint themselves into the dunce’s corner it is far worse.
I agree that humans have had an effect on climate and that part of that effect is caused by our emissions of CO2. Further, I believe strongly that our impacts will increase, primarily because of increased emissions. And this view is considered a-scientific because and only because my views on other related issues do not conform to the politically correct version of climate change.
If you all keep acting like dunces, someday someone will infer it’s because you are in fact dunces.
Slowly but surely, the scientific community is starting to realise that, when it comes to CAGW, as it is with ALL matters of Physics, and as I have always maintained and written about ad nauseum on CE, The Supreme Court of Physics is the hard, measured, empirical, replicated data. It does not matter how many people, with all the qualifications in the world, get together and give their opinion that the science is settled, if Mother Nature decides the science is not settled, then she wins; hands down.
If CAGW is a hoax, then, in the end, the empircal data will prove that it is a hoax. Maybe the next domino to fall will be Arctic sea ice extent at miniumum, this September.
Curious thoughts.
If the “science” is abstract without “proofs” then it can never be settled other than politically. All the cherry picking and coincidence in the short-term isn’t going to change that dynamic. It’s never going to be settled with spaghetti charts but acknowledging the motives of the agenda itself.
Skeptics can’t resolve their political ID differences so the unicorn science hunt remains the standard. The “hoax” is politically based and may be impacted by chaotic weather or in fact the quality of propaganda produced on the subject.
Forget arctic minimums and get focused on the political expediency of the central planning consensus solutions that are the common link to the climate belief system. Climate science is corrupt but for a reason and a rationalization. Without defining the motive the jury will remain hung at best.
It’s a prototypical skeptical debate failure. The integrity of “science” has actually failed already. If people can’t accept that then the agenda moves forward. They’re going to go great guns until November and Arctic minimums are really far from the front. Better we focus on the intellectual embarrassment that CAGW is in the minds of the marginal Obama/statist coalition. It seems Dr. Curry is committed, for example, to make smart remarks from the gallery but wishes to stay out of the fray and not take an actual side.
2014 JAXA ice extent is in fourth place right now. Cryosphere area is all bunched up no worse than 7th, all within 150k, PIOMAS comes out within a few days so maybe is spot on.
See you in September and we’ll look at the pause then as well.
As for the OP, kudos to the editor, we can stop rehashing all this nonsense and get on with destroying the economy already, before Mother Nature does it for us.
Either way we lose, lets take the least painful option.
“in the end, the empirical data will prove…” Meanwhile the Administration is issuing laws to decimate the US coal industry based on so-very-successful models. Many will not live to see the end.
@ Jim Cripwell
“If CAGW is a hoax, then, in the end, the empircal data will prove that it is a hoax.”
Unfortunately, the ’empirical’ data is collected, analyzed–and adjusted, if necessary–by the hoaxers.
A prediction: Draconian policies to tax and control ACO2 will be implemented by decree. See Monday’s proclamation, for example. In a couple of years, the ‘data’ will show that ‘just as predicted’ the Climate Change policies are working, but because of the tentative nature of the first policies they will not be adequate to avoid catastrophe, It is therefore necessary, based on the initial success, to strengthen and expand the scope of the policies. More proclamations to follow.
Or winter sea ice extent… What happens if a wavy jet stream dumps moisture from a big el Nino ends up in the arctic?
Bob, you write “Unfortunately, the ‘empirical’ data is collected, analyzed–and adjusted, if necessary–by the hoaxers.”
Luckily, you are wrong. SOME data can be adjusted, but not ALL data.
aaron, you write “Or winter sea ice extent…”
Not quite. Arctic sea ice extent, in the great scheme of things, is not important. It only matters because the warmsts SAY it matters. The warmists have managed to ignore Antarctic sea ice, and Arctic sea ice at maximum. They have put all their eggs into the basket of a “death spiral” of Arctic sea ice at minimum. If this trend truly reverses, then it ought to be difficult for the warmists to explain why their prediction did not happen.
bob droege,
So show me the research proving a warming world leads to more extreme weather.
Mother Nature has always been a bitch at times. Trying to claim she is now more so because the house is a bit warmer marks one for a fool.
There are impacts to be found. However all of the ones hightlighted as catastrophic are mostly non-existent or greatly exaggerated. Our governor here in WA likes to claim we are already seeing the impacts, but he is careful to talk in generalities, like increasing wildfires and ocean acidification. Never a mention of any other factors, such as forest management policies which have created extremely high fuel loading or naturally occuring deep ocean upwelling. If the evidence is so compelling for anthropogenic CO2 acidification, why can’t the proponents of that hypothesis tell us what the percentages are between anthro and upwelling?
@ Jim Cripwell
“Luckily, you are wrong. SOME data can be adjusted, but not ALL data.”
So what modern temperature records have NOT been adjusted?
I admit that I have no personal knowledge of how climate data is handled, but I read repeatedly that the land surface temperature data has been adjusted. Several times–and in a manner that make older data appear cooler. Also I have read that the raw ARGO data, which showed a very small cooling trend, was ‘adjusted’. It now shows a very small warming trend. And so on.
Then we have ‘filled’ data and ‘kriged’ data for sites a thousand km from the site of any actual thermometer and what appears to me to be ‘data’ conjured up out of whole cloth, which is then used in models whose output is the ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth’.
What climate data do you trust and who is collecting it?
“What happens if a wavy jet stream dumps moisture from a big el Nino ends up in the arctic?”
_____
It usually snows if it is cold enough.
“The warmists have managed to ignore Antarctic sea ice…”
_____
Um, not so much. There have been several excellent research papers written on the subject. But it makes a nice bit of denialist fiction to suggest warmists are ignoring this important region of the planet.
Right, and arctic ice would jump.
Bob Ludwick | June 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
“So what modern temperature records have NOT been adjusted?
I admit that I have no personal knowledge of how climate data is handled, but I read repeatedly that the land surface temperature data has been adjusted.”
I think you should acquire some personal knowledge before declaring that it has all been adjusted.
GHCN Daily is an extensive record of unadjusted daily temperatures, as reported. GHCN V3 QCU is the corresponding monthly record. also unadjusted.
Bob, you write “What climate data do you trust and who is collecting it?”
There is some data that cannot be adjusted; such as sea ice area and extent. I cannot give you a list of all such data. Things like rain and snow amounts also come to mind.
But on the key issue of global temperatures, we have the RSS and UAH data from satellites, as calculated by Christy and Spencer respectively. So far as I am aware, these have never been deliberately adjusted. There were initial difficulties with satellite drift, but these were not “àdjustments“as you are using the term. It is going to be more and more difficult for the other three data sets, NCDC/NOAA, GISS and HAD/CRU to go on adjusting data. There will be too much divergence.
Nick Stokes
GHCN Daily is unadjusted?
‘GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network)-Daily is an integrated database of daily climate summaries from land surface stations across the globe. Like its monthly counterpart (GHCN-Monthly) , GHCN-Daily is comprised of daily climate records from numerous sources that have been integrated and subjected to a common suite of quality assurance reviews.
GHCN-Daily now contains records from over 75000 stations in 180 countries and territories. Numerous daily variables are provided, including maximum and minimum temperature, total daily precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth; however, about two thirds of the stations report precipitation only. Both the record length and period of record vary by station and cover intervals ranging from less than year to more than 175 years.
The dataset is regularly reconstructed (usually every weekend) from its 20-plus data source components to ensure that GHCN-Daily is generally in sync with its growing list of constituent sources. During this process, quality assurance checks are applied to the full dataset. On most weekdays, GHCN-Daily station data are updated when possible from a variety of data streams, which also undergo a suite of quality checks.’
In what sense is that unadjusted in the sense we would understand the term?
The quality of the data in the first place is highly variable as methodology and quality of observation varied so much. I wrote of that here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%E2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/
tonyb
Tonyb,
“In what sense is that unadjusted in the sense we would understand the term?”
In the sense that no-one actually changes the numbers reported. They do quality checks, to omit numbers that are obviously wrong. Not always effective – I complain here. And there is associated organisation; temperatures are reported in various places, and they have to work out exactly what station (ie if two reports, are they the same place), and resolve any conflicts.
Last Oz summer, I looked into Melbourne data here. I checked quite a lot of the high readings in GHCN against contemporary news reports. They matched.
R. Gates, you write “But it makes a nice bit of denialist fiction to suggest warmists are ignoring this important region of the planet.”
I am not sure why I bother to answer. Initially, the forecast from the warmists was that both Arctic AND Antarctic sea ice extent would decrease. When the Antarctic refused to cooperate, numerous “scientific” reports were written purporting to show that, so far as CAGW was concerned, the Antarctic could be ignored, and only the Arctic was important.
What remains to be seen is how the warmists move the goalposts again, should Arctic sea ice extent refuse to cooperate with their projections of what the evil gas CO2 is supposed to do to minimum extents in the Arctic in summer.
“GHCN-Daily does not contain adjustments for biases resulting from historical changes in instrumentation and observing practices. It should be noted that historically (and in general), the stations providing daily summaries for the dataset were not managed to meet the all of the desired standards for climate monitoring.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily/
GHCN-Daily doesn’t meet required standards for climate monitoring according to it’s own website. Oh well.
Andrew
This is funny too:
“In addition, GHCN-Daily and GHCN-Monthly are not currently internally consistent (i.e., GHCN-Monthly is not necessarily derived from the data in GHCN-Daily); however, GHCN-Daily is anticipated to be a major source of future updates to GHCN-Monthly”
Huh?
Andrew
@ Nick Stokes
“I think you should acquire some personal knowledge before declaring that it has all been adjusted.”
I don’t think that I actually declared that ALL climate data is adjusted. I consider reading climate sites such as this one to be ‘acquiring personal knowledge’ and it is here that I have read reports of adjusting temperature records and ARGO data, to cite two examples. It is here where I learned of ‘filling’ and ‘kriging’. I. e. ‘modeling’ the temperature for sites hundreds of km from an actual thermometer and including the modeled temperature in the (modeled) Temperature of the Earth.
@ climagtereason
Hello Tony,
I read your 2011 piece on WUWT and it simply reinforces my opinion that I have stated in response to other of Dr. Curry’s posts: If the entire might of ‘Climate Science Incarnate’ were to descend on my county in VA, divide themselves into two independent teams, each team INDEPENDENTLY instrument my county, collect data for a year, calculate the ‘Temperature of My County for the Previous Year’, and publish the results, I would be willing to bet a thousand dollars of my own money that the results would not match within +/- 0.1 degree. And I’ll be generous and let them use C instead of F. If I don’t believe that they can measure the temperature of my county with 0.1 degree precision, using the latest modern instrumentation, why would I believe that they can reconstruct the ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth’ for hundreds or thousands of years in the past with tenth degree precision?
When I was working we bought a $15k environmental chamber to see how stable our precision microwave transmitter output was at constant temperature and over the expected temperature range where it was to be deployed. It was heavily insulated and controlled by a PID controller. Even then, the uniformity within the chamber was only specced to +/- 0.5 C and the accuracy only +/-0.3 C. And I am supposed to believe that someone can derive and plot a single figure annual temperature of the entire earth, with tenth degree precision, over century time frames, including centuries before the invention of the thermometer, and furthermore, that these plots can reasonably be used as the basis of trillion dollar political decisions?
Fortunately for the ‘policymakers’, they need not care a fig what I or any other citizen believes. They simply dictate the policy, inform us that we will follow it–or else–and ask ‘Whaddaya gonna do about it, suckahs?’. So far, the answer is ‘Nothing at all, sirs.’.
AGU is now a trade association, not a scientific association, very concerned about the financial and emotional stakes in climate alarmism. In this case, ‘Enron’ has a trade association too.
I find the idea of such a forum interesting. It is a shame the submission to EOS couched the idea in the terms it did. Essentially the submission politicized the issue. A political submission was handled with a political rejection. He made it easy to reject.
Perhaps folks like Rud and others who have access to capital could carry forward the idea of the forum and “prize” and up the prize money.
you dont need no stinking AGU.
It could be called the NAGU.
I didn’t find Asten’s submission to be politicized? He did not mention policy at all. Main jist is that the Dessler and Curry testimonies are valuable reference points for scientific debate
I agree with Judith. I don’t see any attempt to politicise. It’s about as flat and even-handed as you can get on the issues of climate.
What was probably less easy was it pointed out bias in AGU and suggested a concrete way to advance non-biased examination of data in an objective scientific way.
Worse still, it attempts to pollute the minds of the next generation of scientists with his quaint, outdated ideas of applying the scientific method in place of evangelism.
No attempt being made to get the right balance between being honest and being effective.
No wonder they rejected his silly prizes.
Judith I propose that our disagreement about this is definitional. I should have been more clear. By politicizing I don’t mean that a policy was proposed. Rather, I mean that the forum was framed as being in the center of a debate which officially “does not exist”. The situatioin is similar to the one we faced with our paper. We framed our paper as answering the questions of skeptics. Consequently it could be rejected on the grounds that 1) skeptics had no point to begin with, and 2) skeptics will never be satisfied– a comment actually made by one of the reviewers.
let me highlight some sentences which allow people to see the very establishment of the prize as an implicit criticism of the state of science
“, but
it fails to portray scientific method in considering those parts of the science which don’t fit an over-simplified scenario of CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming (AGW).”
There is no need to call the scenario over simplified. Its true, but there is no need to ruffle feathers.
“I suggest that the wide spread of estimates is telling us there is more to the science
than the simplistic CO2-temperature relation which the film presents. ”
Again, there is no need to get this dig in.
“I noticed one gem of optimism
as he discussed discrepancies between models and some observational data, saying “I suspect
future revisions [of the data] will bring it into ever-closer agreement with the models.”
Again, this is a subtle dig. gem of optimism suggests that the state of model data comparison is deficient. True, but one need not stick the knife in.
“She finds that the case for human factors dominating temperature
change of the past 130 years is weaker than it was 10years ago, and evidence for the
importance of natural variability on climate changes, is growing. ”
Again, this frames the proposed forum as addressing evidence that is being ignored. Instead of saying the evidence is “growing” it would be more politically acceptable to say the evidence is “interesting” and perhaps a key to improving climate models.
“These pages are not the place to adjudicate these opposing arguments, but it surprises me that
contrary to the intent of our mission statement, the two sides rarely appear in AGU
commentaries”
This is particularly bad. First it frames it as an argument. Second, he puts them in the bad position of being out of step with their own mission.
Rather say this:
“These pages are not the place to investigate and potentially reconcile these opposing views, but it is part of AGU mission to address the frontier of science issues raised by Dessler and Curry.”
“I have on two occasions in the past
year attended conferences relating to climate science where my questions (from a perspective
closer to Curry than Dessler) have prompted graduate geology students to talk to me about
aspects of their data which don’t fit the concept of recent unprecedented climate change. It is
tragic when such students are discouraged by supervisors or departmental priorities from
exploring such ideas – there are too many anecdotal examples of such discouragement to
ignore”
Again, by framing this as an antidote to the crushing of dissent, he gives them no choice. If they allow the piece, they admit to the crushing. he should have been more sly. Also the reference to Nobel prizes and consensus are not necessary. It frames the suggested prize as potentially being hugely important. better to sandbag. In short he raised the stakes
pre flop and they folded.
Rather
“In my own experience I have been approached by students who talk to me about aspects of their data which could illuminate this discussion, but they have a hard time getting others to take notice of their work.”
And the rest of the framing just gives them the easy way out. This is like plate tectonics.. etc.. and he frames it as a challenge etc.
its an opportunity, not a challenge. Its an opportunity to advance science, not a challenge to EOS and AGU.
I hope this makes what I said clear
good points
The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse
| June 3, 2014 at 11:52 am |
It could be called the NAGU.
##############
every time I think stupidity has an upper bound you blow through it.
The point is simple. If skeptics think
A) that scientists are only in it for the gold
B) that dissent is being crushed.
then the solution is simple.
Offer up a cash prize to have an unfettered look at the data.
hmm, somebody else tried that. let’s see, who would have funded a open look at data? let’s see, what did that open look find? opps, yes it found that the concerns about the data were overplayed.
So I see nothing more satisfying than to ask folks to put their money and time where their mouth is. If folks think that we are in it for the gold, and if they think that students are being suppressed, then raise some money and host a prize competition. Don’t ask the AGU or EOS to do what they clearly lack the stones to do. They dont serve science, they serve their institutional interests. as in duh.
Steven Mosher
”
every time I think stupidity has an upper bound you blow through it.
”
Every time I think smug irrelevancy has a lower bound you blow through it.
Greg
‘What was probably less easy was it pointed out bias in AGU and suggested a concrete way to advance non-biased examination of data in an objective scientific way.”
yes. do you actually think it is rhetorically effect to suggest to institution that they back a competition PREDICATED on the supposition that they are not doing their job?
If you think an organization isnt doing their job, the last thing you want to do is explicitly challenge thm
The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse | June 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
Steven Mosher
”
every time I think stupidity has an upper bound you blow through it.
”
Every time I think smug irrelevancy has a lower bound you blow through it.
###################
awesome, Rev shoots, he scores
self irony own goal
”
awesome, Rev shoots, he scores
self irony own goal
”
Words. Analogies. Victory declared.
Carry on!
Jeb,
I wouldn’t fret too much. Sooner or later Josh or lolwot or now willard will come along and reset the bar higher.
Have fun playing leap frog.
“Josh or lolwot or now Willard”
The Trollateral Commission.
Andrew
Steven Mosher: There is no need to call the scenario over simplified. Its true, but there is no need to ruffle feathers.
That was a good post on the whole, and the point that I quoted is not without merit. But the fact that much (maybe every policy recommendation) is based on an oversimplified model is the most important point in opening people’s minds to the usefulness of research, re-analysis, and debate. imo
Another quote: Again, by framing this as an antidote to the crushing of dissent, he gives them no choice.
That’s ironic, since their response emphasizes the important of quashing dissent, and the effect of the decision is in fact to stifle dissent.
Steven Mosher: Don’t ask the AGU or EOS to do what they clearly lack the stones to do. They dont serve science, they serve their institutional interests. as in duh.
Golly. Don’t recommend to AGU a forum like the other forums to further their mission statement? Of course they serve science, they are merely imperfect like everyone.
Rev
“Words. Analogies. Victory declared.
Carry on!”
It is quite simple.
The charge of irrelevance can be maintained in one of two ways.
1. Supplying evidence of what the real issue is.
2. Appealing to your own personal authority on what is relevant
or irrelevant.
So, if Trenberth were to come on here and in his own name make a charge of irrelevance it would carry some weight. Some weight. I would at least have to address it, since I value his opinion.
When a nobody who is irrelevant makes a bald unsubstantiated claim of irrelevance, well, that’s just an own goal.
curryja | June 3, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
good points
Yes, Mosh’ argues that pretty well. Though reasonable, it was too up front to have much chance of being accepted.
Obviously not getting the right balance between being honest and being effective ;)
Perhaps the aim was not to try to sneak one in by being “sly”, watering it down and being dishonest but just to point out that an attempt at open, scientific debate is not welcome at AGU.
By quoting their own stated aims he points out how far off course they are from the stated objectives of AGU.
“Obviously not getting the right balance between being honest and being effective ;)”
Yes. It played into their rejection frames. There is a way of being honest
and effective. It involves leaving certain things unsaid and making appeals to the right reasons.
So instead of saying “this is an opportunity to let students who are oppressed have their say” you can honestly say its an opportunity to let students weigh in on a contested issue.
Steven Mosher | June 3, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
”
So, if Trenberth were to come on here and in his own name make a charge of irrelevance it would carry some weight. Some weight. I would at least have to address it, since I value his opinion.
”
Mr Mosher, I suggest that you take yourself – and blog-puffery in general – far too seriously.
Just saying.
Rev ignores the argument yet again. Instead he comes to place, a blog, argues that blogs dont matter, makes this argument to people who he claims dont matter all the while hiding his identity.
If this behavior strikes you as beyond stupid and below effective then youre in good company.
“I find the idea of such a forum interesting. It is a shame the submission to EOS couched the idea in the terms it did. Essentially the submission politicized the issue. A political submission was handled with a political rejection. He made it easy to reject.”
Ah – one should not suggest the emperor has no clothes, instead one should enter into a debate about the nature of visibility and the nature of clothing in general.
Really, Mosher?
“I won’t play because you hurt my feelings” doesn’t sound like the grown-up, fact-based way to behave that one should expect from scientists, but what the hell…
Mosh, I disagree with you. Having to tiptoe around the tender sensitivities of some at AGU should not be a requirement for establishment of such a forum. They should definitely be made of sterner stuff. If they are convinced of the rightness of their belief, they should encourage such a forum as the quickest way of proving it.
There was no overtly insulting language, no appeal to ‘Moncktonism’, nothing that would have raised a red flag. The points you raise fall into the ‘pearl clutching’ category.
Tom Fuller | June 4, 2014 at 12:43 am |
“Mosh, I disagree with you. Having to tiptoe around the tender sensitivities of some at AGU should not be a requirement for establishment of such a forum.”
The issue here is the rejection of an article. EOS is a magazine of articles of general interest to AGU readership; the editor decided it wasn’t of sufficient interest for the reasons he cited. Isn’t that what editors do?
His centrepiece was that AGU should set up a particular discussion. The editor likely thought that AGU wouldn’t do that. That would have reduced any potential interest in the article.
I have to say that the stuff about his career changing experience was self-indulgent, and in itself adequate reason for rejection. OK, they could have asked for it to be removed, but it would have been enough to tip the scales.
All those drama-queening over this perhaps need a gentle reminder of what Asten wrote in his ‘Note to Editor’. Hint, look at the brackets! ;
“While I have referred to Dessler and Curry as adjudicators for the suggested prizes, they would need to be consulted, and/or alternative nominations arranged, before (and if) this Forum piece proceeds to a final form.”
Nick Stokes: Yes, the rejection can be made to seem perfectly reasonable if you just ignore the reasons they gave for it and replace them with some speculation about what they might have been.
because “climate change ….is no longer a topic of scientific controversy. “
Great new “communications” strategy there. When you know you’ve lost, you just declare the game and pretend you won.
Brilliant.
The next step is curl up in corner , rocking back and forth, staring into the air with an inaine grin.
Greg,,
That’s been there game for some time now. Of course it’s beyond depressing, but at the same time I can’t help but admire the sheer chutzpah of the warmists. Say what you will, they know how to play the game. Ultimately it will all come crashing down. I only hope I live long enough to see it.
Greg,
That strategy has been in effect since at least 2007 with the science is settled and the debate is over messages.
I wonder how many people these two idiotic messaging arguments have turned into skeptics.
You would hope people were interested in sleazy totalitarian inclinations and tactics of the total agenda but these are routine and predictable at this point in history.
Why should people be outraged by the tactics you are pointing out when you fail to present a unified and direct explanation of what the agenda motivations are at the AGU and almost anywhere else in the climate change support community? If you don’t have a reasonable explanation without bundles of nuance and peer winking as to what climate political lust is really about the tactical reports fall pretty flat.
“Science” was hijacked by the agenda long ago and these are routine reports. It’s when you get closer to “why” they are doing it that makes advocates upset and exposed. You make it sound like a car accident instead of a crass process of suppressing skeptics that stand in the way of a “science” aligned authoritarian political “consensus”. There is no philosophical “middle” here, it’s one side or the other. Worst of all, the cultural enclave of climate authoritarianism gets a pass on motives as we discuss their sleazy tactics and attributes. Endlessly it seems.
More “why” and less “how” is my best recommendation if true reform is the goal.
JC:
”
With Asten’s permission, I forwarded his email to Peter Webster, who is President of the AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section and a member of the AGU Council. He asked me to hold off on a blog post, while he tried to get the AGU to deal with this issue internally. He sent emails to the AGU leadership, voicing his concerns about using the AGU policy statement as a basis for rejecting an article, and requesting permission to send an email to the Council voicing his concerns about AGU’s editorial policies in this regard.
”
Some investigators might consider such a voicing of concerns by one’s partner about such an “issue” to be “advocacy”.
Anyhow: Tempest, meet teacup.
You mean about the part where I delayed posting this for a few weeks so Peter could try to convince the AGU to deal with this issue internally?
Judith
This is spooky. Today on BBC Radio 4 ‘World at One ‘ (a main news and current affairs programme) there was an item about how difficult it is to find funding for research that goes against the current scientific consensus. They specifically cited the rejection of any such proposals in the ‘pre peer review’ funding meetings. The speaker-a scientist-had discussed this problem with the UK Govt.
Its on here but I don’t think those who are overseas can listen to the programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/wato
tonyb
can’t get it, maybe someone will write up something about this
Very generous of you to hold your verbal fire, Dr Curry.
But really: What issue?
And – “deal” with it how, precisely?
Editors gonna edit.
You and Peter Webster are clearly the ones trying to ‘politicize’ the “issue”.
Are you really so vain as to think that your blog-posting on this “issue” makes a difference to anyone but you and the denizens?
Do you think that the AGU is actually concerned by the possibility that you might be critical of them on a blog?
I suspect that their skin is thicker than your rhetoric.
Thanks for reminding me why, as a scientist, you comment under a pseudonym
”
…there was an item about how difficult it is to find funding for research that goes against the current scientific consensus.
”
Imagine.
No money to study phlogiston or the luminiferous aether or phrenology.
curryja | June 3, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
”
Thanks for reminding me why, as a scientist, you comment under a pseudonym
”
You have no evidence that I am a scientist.
Projection much?
Thanks for reminding me why, as a blog-commenter, I enjoy commenting here so much.
Ok, then maybe you are using someone else’s email address.
Hypotenuse, if you think cloud feedback or climate sensitivity equate to phlogiston, then I finally understand why your avatar includes Reverend. You are a priest in The religion of CAGW, aka warmunism, in which the editor of EOS now plays a publicly visible role insuring doctrinal conformity. Best worship elsewhere, as this blog is about climate science and it’s policy consequences.
To call the AGU stance, and it’s response to Webster, a teapot tempest just shows you do not recognize the stakes, or how grievously the ‘climate consensus’ has damaged/is damaging the established institutions of science.
curryja | June 3, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
”
Ok, then maybe you are using someone else’s email address.
”
Rud Istvan | June 3, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
”
Hypotenuse, if you think cloud feedback or climate sensitivity equate to phlogiston, then I finally understand why your avatar includes Reverend. You are a priest in The religion of CAGW, aka warmunism…
”
You folks are so saturated by identity politics, that you actually care who I am. Cute.
In other circumstance’s, I might be flattered.
Can’t help but notice the reverend didn’t deny being a scientist. Merely that there is purportedly, no evidence. Care to issue a direct denial?
Whatever the case, scientist or not, the good reverent certainly has the trademark warmist nasty arrogance… in spades. Uncanny, that it just about never fails. Said it many times, can’t think of one of them I’d like to have a beer with.
”
Said it many times, can’t think of one of them I’d like to have a beer with.
”
I suppose that means I will never be President of the United States.
“You folks are so saturated by identity politics, that you actually care who I am. Cute.”
note the people digging into who Asten is.
Cute and ironic.
Judith, the point that tonyb was talking about, funding difficult for blue skies or unfashionable research, comes from this letter in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10870609/The-damaging-bureaucracy-of-academic-peer-preview.html
… also discussed in this article,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10870995/Nobel-winners-say-scientific-discovery-virtually-impossible-due-to-funding-bureaucracy.html
Paul
Thanks for finding those links, you have saved me the trouble. The second one is especially interesting and I note the scientist has written a book on the subject. Looks like anything that doesn’t agree wth the consensus has no chance of funding.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the EU? A couple of years ago I came across a link that said the eu would only fund research into determining that man was responsible for changing the climate, not IF. I was ,naively, shocked.
Tonyb
Two things stand out here: The Reverend is (apparently, and I think correctly) too ashamed of his antics here and elsewhere to reveal his/her identity, and while he/she is clearly a scientist, there is zero technical/scientific content in his/her comments… just hostility, heavily over coated with arrogance. How obnoxious. News for the Reverend: You aren’t helping ‘the cause’ by behaving this way.
Tony B, Paul M, I quoted from and linked to the DT article when it first appeared. Can’t recall which thread.
The Rev is doing his duty — pointing out how much of a 3-ring circus that the denial-o-sphere has become.
WebHubTelescope: The Rev is doing his duty — pointing out how much of a 3-ring circus that the denial-o-sphere has become.
Which of his comments did that?
And in ring number 3 — cluelessness.
Then step out of ring #3.
“…just hostility, heavily over coated with arrogance. How obnoxious.”
Who is this Mann?
I side with the rev on this one. There is, indeed, no evidence that s/he is a scientist.
Indeed, I would claim that there is pretty good evidence that s/he does not understand science at all.
The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse: You have no evidence that I am a scientist.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Most of your writing is indirect and pointless. I wish you’d make your points directly and clearly. Just one opinion — I acknowledge that I may not be your intended audience.
I agree that this could be a serious issue of bias, and rather unscientific response. but I think it depends on the likelihood of AGU to refuse to explore areas of research that look at the areas of uncertainty. so far I see no indication of that.
I would also guess that a big part of the problem is the polarization and the repeated attempts of so called “skeptics” to try and find some crack where they can get in and declare that their concerns ( both valid and and invalid) are not being accepted by the establishment. the history of distortions and misrepresentation, as well as downright false propaganda from those that have called themselves skeptics has created an atmosphere of antagonism, so I would not be surprised if the editors, on googling the author concluded that this was not a true scientific and educational endeavor.
The fact that the Bengtsson affair was hyped to such an extent in the “skeptic” media, and that, there was almost no acknowledgement of Bengtsson’s own clarifications of the situation ( no, he does not think the IPCC is engaged in fraud and no, having his paper rejected was not due to an intolerance of real science that contradicts the orthodoxy), indicates the sort of lack of interest in having an honest dialogue. Judith, did you in fact report on his response to the mail article that you and others trumpeted?
this is indeed a sad state of affairs, but being as scientists are human and subject to human emotions, not an unexpected occurrence.
While I do not approve of censoring legitimate questions and encouraging educational exploration, I can see the authors as looking at this issue the way biologists look at “intelligent design advocates. the situation is certainly not identical, but the parallels are quite obvious.
Tony Duncan: so I would not be surprised if the editors, on googling the author concluded that this was not a true scientific and educational endeavor.
Good idea. I googled the author and came up with this, among other good stuff.
http://www.monash.edu.au/research/people/profiles/profile.html?sid=1645&pid=3001
It looks like he is accustomed to having his work tested by its practical results; and his computer algorithms/programs by their accuracy.
the monash bio seems quite respectable.
but then I found this.
http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642
If true it seems to lend credence to my suggestion, as well as increasing my skepticism of Judith’s interest in looking at al the facts.
http://www.monash.edu.au/research/people/profiles/profile.html?sid=1645&pid=3001
Sound like a real scientist trying to stick his oar into climatology. Can’t be having that.
Tony Duncan,
You might also like:
> President Elect: Michael Asten.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=PVv2008n137.pdf
Coincidence? You be the judge!
Only real scientists can preside the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists anyway.
Tony Duncan: but then I found this.
http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642
Thank you for the link. It includes: The problem is that on one side of the debate you have 97% of the world’s published climate scientists and the world’s major scientific organisations, and on the other side you have fools.
Excuse my bluntness, but it is past time to acknowledge that the science underpinning anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The sceptics have had the time and opportunity to come with up a convincing case, but their best efforts read like arguments that NASA faked the moon landing.
Again with the 97% idiocy.
But reread the reasons given for the refusal. They are not that Asten isn’t qualified or that his editorials are unfounded, but that the science is settled. The science about CO2 effects on climate is full of liabilities, and AGU could explore those liabilities on the forum that they declined to institute.
“While I do not approve of censoring legitimate questions and encouraging educational exploration, I can see the authors as looking at this issue the way biologists look at “intelligent design advocates. the situation is certainly not identical, but the parallels are quite obvious.”
This difference is that this is consensus without an object. (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/08/science-without-an-object.html) Consensus about one basic issue is identified with consensus about anything and everything. And the range of tolerated opinion appears to be shrinking. The idea of consensus then becomes opportunistically useful for discrediting opinions.
This is such a clear-cut case. If the article in question had been a defense of the idea that CO2 warming the atmosphere is a physical impossibility, then the parallel with intelligent design would make some sense and surely we wouldn’t be reading this.
Also, the issues become identified with the people holding them. This creates opportunity for ambitious opportunists. This is a dynamic that is well-known to many of us. Holding the “correct” opinion and attacking those with an “incorrect” opinion becomes an easy way to gain personal advantage. In the typical case, the rest have to live in fear, trying as best they can to speak in a way that won’t displease the powers that be while still trying to say something meaningful.
So you have three roles in the system: boss, yes man, and outsider. And you have a feedback loop that keeps unwanted information out. When you no longer have to listen to anything that the outsiders say, and anyone who says anything challenging the consensus is defined as an outsider, then belief in the consensus just keeps growing by its own momentum.
So is this the way it works in climate science? I don’t know it well enough to generalize. But in this particular case, censoring something so innocent as a call for tolerance, dialog and openness is a dead giveaway as far as I’m concerned.
“But reread the reasons given for the refusal. They are not that Asten isn’t qualified or that his editorials are unfounded, but that the science is settled. The science about CO2 effects on climate is full of liabilities, and AGU could explore those liabilities on the forum that they declined to institute.”
so Asten challenged them to have an open forum of scientific debate and they responded by a totally farcical. “anti-science” statement that there is no longer anything to discuss. This despite models based on their “settle science” getting further and further from reality and a growing consciousness, even amongst the modelling community, that the degree of warming shown by the models is not realistic.
He probably could not have hoped for a clearer admission of their total abdication of any pretence at being a scientific body.
Willard(@nevaudit): http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=PVv2008n137.pdf
Good find!
If you only recognize that a doubling of CO2 is likely to produce 3.7 Wm-2 of additional resistance to atmospheric heat loss and that nothing else is “settled”, are you a batchit crazy climate denier or do you have to be a cyclomaniac as well?
” While I have referred to Dessler and Curry as adjudicators for the suggested prizes, they would need to be consulted, and/or …..”
Using Dr. Curry’s name in the intro paragraph probably ensured they’d do their best to bin it.
A blatant attempt create “false balance”. We all know you’re supposed to have 30 warmists for every Curry.
They are now running scared, They know the games up but just hope they can string it out a bit longer by draconian censorship and Machiavellian manoeuvring.
Any pretence at rational discussion and scientific enquiry is now abandoned.
Ah yes, the Curry 30 to 1 factor
”
Ah yes, the Curry 30 to 1 factor
”
Clutch your pearls 30 times for every perceived instance of consensus-victimization.
You should write for Vanity Fair, Dr Curry.
Write for VF? Heck, she should be on the cover. :)
She could also do a photo layout about dressing both appropriately and fashionably for any climate – or climate fluctuation, or climate extreme, or whatever the current buzzword might be. At the rate the alarmists come up with new and confusing terms, it could become a monthly feature.
he would have done better by framing it as
‘an opportunity for mere graduate students to demonstrate why Curry is wrong”
He needed to be devious.
Jeb,
That leaves Teen Idol for you.
On second thought, maybe Highlight is more your speed.
The 30 to 1 Warmist -Curry factor: I am imagining Prof. Curry with net and trident, gladiator style, facing a hall of mirrors with innumerable images of Prof. Michael Mann and the professor in there somewhere. Mann will probably sue me for this, so send your contributions to my defense fund to Prof. Curry for safe keeping.
Hmmm … a Google Search for “Michael Asten” and “junk science” turns up severe criticism from peers and also dubious editorials on WUWT and moreover some concrete reasons for editorial concern
Conclusion Michael Asten’s proposal provided scant reason for AGU editors to discount these concerns.
That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
A fan of *MORE* discourse, thanks for the link to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/climate-cycles-and-political-alarmism/
He notes what a lot of others have noted: the “consensus” underestimates the natural (non-CO2 related variability); and he notes that claims that recent climate events are “extremes caused by humans” have little to no evidence behind them.
You quote: “We would like to take this opportunity to add our voices to the strong and steady message that the world scientific community is delivering to the Copenhagen negotiators — the greenhouse problem is real, imminent and potentially devastating for the planet, its life, and human civilization. Fortunately it is still not too late to avert the catastrophe.”
It would be a useful public service if AGU were to provide an open forum for the discussion of data sets, instead of ratifying a conclusion that a few scientists jumped to based on inadequate evidence.
According to Gavin Schmidt about 30 years are necessary to characterize a “climate”; according to Santer et al in a peer-reviewed article it takes about 17 years to clearly characterize a climate change. Yet Holdren, Ehrlich, Schneider, and others swung from “cooling catastrophism” to “warming catastrophism” in less than 10 years based on slim evidence (if any) and calculations based on a clearly oversimplified and counterfactual model. The forecasts have all turned out to be wrong by varying amounts, and clearly inadequate for planning.
Reading your links confirms the message of the head post that AGU is stifling scientific discussion of a bunch of theoretical propositions that are full of inadequacies.
You also quote: He is, however, well-connected with the mining and coal industries.
Academic scientists need to pay much more attention to technically skilled and scholarly scientists whose work has produced actual results, instead of focusing all their attention on counterfactual hypothetical scenarios and vast inaccurate models.
You’re welcome Matthew R Marler!
Perhaps the AGU editors more fully appreciate — better than Michael Asten and even Judith Curry? — that climate-change “cycle-science” has a poor scientific track-record; and that single-author cycle-science theories have a worse scientific track record; and that statistics-only single-author cycle-seeking climate-science theories pushed on ideology-first websites have a disastrously bad scientific track record.
Conclusion The AGU editors are not obligated to support statistics-only single-author cycle-seeking climate-science.
That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Matthew R Marler?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: The AGU editors are not obligated to support statistics-only single-author cycle-seeking climate-science.
Of course not, and that is not what Asten proposed.
That climate cycles exist is not more uncertain than that CO2 absorbs long-wave infrared. It’s the particular models, in both cases, that are doubtful.
What’s your argument against statistics? Statistics are the only evidence that the Earth has warmed, e.g. the BEST statistical analyses. Or do you only object to “single-author statistical analyses”?
Notice that the refusal of AGU to create the forum advocated by Asten is not the real issue. It is the assertion that there is no scientific basis for doubting CO2 effects (and that CO2 is lumped in with other human actions, as though deforestation, agriculture and urban buildup constituted a strong argument in favor of abandoning fossil fuels.)
It would be a shame if the only people who appreciated the gaps in the knowledge of CO2 effects on climate were people who had not yet published in journals devoted to climate science.
Hell no, it is not “obvious to EVERYONE” FOMT, or else we would not be having this thread.That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Among FOMT’s bombastic effusions of obnoxious hyperbole on the Climate Etc. website are such pretensions to speak for everyone and his aggressive attempts to browbeat all with whom he disagrees. This sort of moral and intellectual malfeasance is particularly at odds with the Quakerly traditions of tolerance, mutual respect, and thoughtful dialogue which he pretends to follow.
FOMT is an intellectual, scientific, and moral disgrace.
note: I was referring to FOMbs at
A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 3, 2014 at 12:19 pm
and not to his misrepresentations of what the “AGU editors” and Michael Asten’s proposal stand for, respectively, at
A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 3, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
[which raise a distinct set of issues, as Matthew R Marler details so well above]
The EOS Editor systematically denigrated the AGU’s Core Values starting with inverting the Scientific Method to enforce Authoritarianism.
He implicitly objects to validation as that might expose errors in the Consensus. etc. etc.
By this action, the EOR Editor directly nullifies the standard of scientific integrity established by Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman.
No one expects The Enlightenment to end.
Except this episode shows that in some respects it already has at the AGU.
Come on, Sir Rud, you have more to offer than that.
There’s venture opportunity above. All that’s needed is financial backup. A serious forum where you could even promote your books.
Don’t say it ain’t tempting.
Joshua, there are two polar opposites, it seems to me, to simplify things: the world of Orwell’s 1984, and the Enlightenment tradition of open exploration and inquiry.
It isn’t that the Enlightenment will end in the U.S, that is hard to imagine at present. Rather, it is that the pendulum is swinging fairly quickly in the 1984 direction. Substantial diminishing of spirit of open inquiry of the enlightenment is quite harmful in its own right.
Or in your case, for the light to ever come on.
Enlightenment, Joshua involves a process of OPEN enquiry.
Climate science gatekeeping is the reverse. Today a spirit of
consensivity is abroad. Here in Oz the recent Finkelstein
Report proposing media controls with strong penalties is
an example of intolerance of pluralism of ideas and open
debate. Thank heavens for Climate Etc.
O-we are creatures of the light, of enlightenment.
Drawn to the light flickering on the river,
The riffling silver threads disturbing its opacity.
drawn to the litter of stars that spark
In the dark abyss of the night, to the harvest moon,
Palpable as globed fruit, forgetting
It’s light’s reflected from the sun.
Shine on, o shine, harvest moon.
Seeking through science and poetry to probe
The secrets of the universe and deep abyss,
We yearn for honey from the golden hive,
Enlightenment – O.
bts.
You may also like:
http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642
Auditors might recognize the author, Michael Ashley. Small world. His analysis of the four op-eds is interesting. There is this one entitled “More evidence CO₂ not culprit,” which may or may not be on Judy’s radar.
Incoming! Sky Dragon at 12 o’clock!
Hilarious.
Steven Mosher might even say cute and ironic.
Did you read it? “I argue there are at least two possible hypotheses to explain the data in this study: either the link between atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature increase is significantly greater (that is, more dangerous) than the existing models show or some mechanism other than atmospheric CO2 is a significant or the main factor influencing global temperature.”
Willard plays stupid.
Asten makes two arguments.
1. The data may indicate a greater role for co2 than we think
2 the data may indicate a lesser role.
He does not make the skydragon argument.
That argument is that co2 cannot play a role.
Precision matters.
Cannnot play a role. Skydragons who argue that radiative physics itself is wrong.
Plays little or no role.
Plays a moderate role
Plays a major role
Plays the only role
We get to speculate why willard plays stupid to personalize a debate and why he only plays stupid here.
One theory explains it.
Dagfin.
Willard doesnt look at primary sources..much
He stopped at reading the review of the op ed.
Playing stupid is willard.
> He [the ex-president of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists] does not make the skydragon argument.
We never claimed that he did, only that we do not know if what he claims in previous op-eds fall in or out of Judy’s radar. That Skydragons fall outside Judy’s radar does not entail that only Skydragons do. In other words, if Judy could once and for all clarify that only the Skydragons fall outside her radar, that would be nice. Besides Dittoheads, of course: we already have evidence that Dittoheads fall outside her radar.
Besides, we have no idea what was the communication the ex-president of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists intended. We’re even supposed to withhold judgement.
Let’s also recall that the Bible of Lukewarmism defined a denier as someone who rejects AGW. If the ex-president of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists rejects AGW, that makes him a denier.
There is a tension between the Bible of Lukewarmism and Judy’s radar.
No wonder all this whiteknighting.
***
Speaking of playing dumb, the main reason to quote that article was to remind of Michael Ashley, known by the auditors:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/05/yamal-and-ipcc-ar4-review-comments/#comment-197542
The Auditor’s response made clear that the Auditor had the data all along.
Remember Yamal.
willard continues to play stupid,
“We never claimed that he did, only that we do not know if what he claims in previous op-eds fall in or out of Judy’s radar. That Skydragons fall outside Judy’s radar does not entail that only Skydragons do. In other words, if Judy could once and for all clarify that only the Skydragons fall outside her radar, that would be nice. ”
If you are genuinely interested in what falls outside her radar, then take the time to write a coherent question. “we never claimed” thats a funny stokesian locution.
But before you ask the question, be honorable ( if you can) and state
for the record what you believe.
1. What is a skydragon.
2. what does on her radar mean.
################################
Besides, we have no idea what was the communication the ex-president of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists intended. We’re even supposed to withhold judgement.
Again playing stupid.
#########################
Let’s also recall that the Bible of Lukewarmism defined a denier as someone who rejects AGW. If the ex-president of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists rejects AGW, that makes him a denier.
.Except that he doesnt reject AGW.
Lukewarmism is pretty simple. Core beliefs.
1. C02 will cause warming all other things being equal
2. Man is increasing C02.
3. Given an over/under bet at 3C per doubling, we take the under bet
4. Given an over/under bet at 1C per doubling, we take the over bet
and give odds.
Note.
Nothing in those core beliefs commit one to a position on what to call people who dont believe in those tenents.
Second, Even deniers can have good ideas worthy of endorsing.
> Even deniers can have good ideas worthy of endorsing.
Asten wanted discuss the idea that the “some mechanism other than atmospheric CO2 is a significant or the main factor influencing global temperature.” This goes against AGW, which is endorsed by the AGU.
No wonder the AGU does not find that idea worth discussing.
Let’s hope Dagfinn can grasp such a simple argument.
The idea Asten wanted to discuss goes outside the AGU’s radar.
It does appear that an anti-scientific disease is spreading. It may have began when Jones said he would keep an article from being published if it mean redefining peer review, and when Mann said that a certain climate journal had to be sanitized (words to that effect) of a “rogue” editor (climategate emails). Maybe that was the signal to the “community” to play hardball with any dissent of any kind from within, and to label as deniers, and ostracize any such person, who presented a skeptical view from the outside. Bengtsson walked into a modern buzz saw because he thought he was still in the enlightenment.
Whatever the sociology of how this has happened, it now appears that across much of the alarmist universe, there will be no engagement with the enemy, just personal destruction and denial.
I love science, I read it every day, and it is quite hurtful to see the Renaissance values of inquiry and openness slowly being destroyed.
A greater fear: when people in power discover that it is easier to destroy people than to engage them, we are back at Richard Nixon’s enemies list, but at a much larger scale.
“we are back at Richard Nixon’s enemies list, but at a much larger scale.”
Yes — perhaps even as large as at the Obama scale.
I don’t think it’s new, though. In my experience it’s usual in science that has important political implications. But the scale of this is huge, obviously.
AGU editor and staff are afraid. Were the facts on the side of the consensus, they would favor discussion, debate and engagement. With such a political issue, every opportunity to tell the story is worth the effort.
That they fear debate, duck discussion, and shut down dissent says all that need by said. They are wrong. They know they are wrong. And their actions tell us they know.
More confusion of temperture and climate. Members should be ashamed.
More appropriate, “Humanity is the major influence on land surface temperatures observed over the last 50 years.” (Land use likely being the biggest contributor.)
Or, “Humanity is a major contributor to global average temperature increases over the past 50 years, which may subtly influence changes in climate.”
@ Dr. Asten and Dr. Curry
Two statements:
“I noticed one gem of optimism as he discussed discrepancies between models and some observational data, saying “I suspect future revisions [of the data] will bring it into ever-closer agreement with the models.””
and
” While discussion of this topic continues, it is no longer a topic of scientific controversy.”
Both confirm what I have said several times in commenting on other posts:
‘Anthropogenic CO2 (ACO2) is causing the Temperature of the Earth (TOE) to rise at a historically unprecedented rate. The resulting temperature rise will prove catastrophic unless coordinated governmental action is taken to drastically reduce or eliminate ACO2.’ is not a theory proposed by Climate Science. Within the Climate Science hierarchy it is treated as an axiom, as defined by Wikipedia: ” An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.”
The second point, which I have also made often, is that as classically defined, Climate Science, writ large, is not in fact a science, In all other ‘scientific’ disciplines, other than Climate Science, observations are made, theories are proposed to explain the observations, and further data is collected to either confirm or reject the theory. If data contradicts theory, the theory is adjusted appropriately or replaced. Within Climate Science however, the historical record shows that if analysis of a data set results in conclusions that would threaten the ACO2 axiom, the DATA is adjusted and the axiom is confirmed. See the ‘gem’ above.
This is not to say that each and every individual engaged in some aspect of climate science does so in an ‘unscientific manner’, but reading multiple posts on Dr. Curry’s site, the news, and the commentary about such scientists on other climate oriented sites confirms that they do so at the risk of having their personal and professional reputations destroyed. The pointy end of the Climate Science pyramid behaves more nearly as a religion than as a science, and it is a religion that is extremely intolerant of even the slightest hint of apostasy.
This actually depresses me. However, I have a greater appreciation for Galileo overcoming a millennium and a half of Ptolemy science.
I never really appreciated the magnitude of all that Galileo and later colleagues did for science in all aspects of his life.
and ‘FAN’ the deaths and living on buses to keep warm in England and all of Europe over the last years, which was exacerbated by increased dependence on so called green energy endeavors is of much greater concern than your predictably skewed comments which I read occasionally.
But I have come to realize that the ‘Fan of ‘more’ discourse wants to eliminate all discourse which is not in keeping with his narrow view as shown by the Fans statement above.
SO they declare the “science is settled”. I am sure they would be great supporters of the flat earthers.
After thoughtful and lengthy consultation with colleagues and AGU staff, I have decided to reject the submission based on the significant scientific consensus regarding the question of human-induced climate change. While discussion of this topic continues, it is no longer a topic of scientific controversy.
…
The core of your Forum proposal is that the opposing arguments about climate change “rarely appear in AGU commentaries.” I understand that you have a perspective that does not align with the consensus presented in AGU’s position statement, or the findings of the IPCC and NCA reports. While open debate is essential to success of scientific research, I respectfully recommend that peer-reviewed journals or scientific meetings are the best places to explore these differences, not the Eos Forum pages.
I wonder if the same attitude pervades the grant review process. The rumors are that it does.
I guess Eos won’t publish any of my dirty pictures then, like this one:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/680-140.png
Obviously a faked picture, since Sydney Harbour is so far from post-glacial rebound, subsidence, upheaval etc. It’s the kind of salacious drawing I enjoy, but I know it could end someone’s innocence. Like shooting Bambi or squashing a pixie.
mosomoso
I am afraid you are displaying your woeful ignorance of sea level science. To rectify this;
Step 1 Angle the graph upwards at 45 degrees.
Step 2 Get in your car and head rapidly for the high hills..
tonyb
Tony, no need for moso to generate GHG emissions, he just needs to shin up a tall bamboo.
You need to change the axes scales
The x-axis needs to be very, very much shorter (just squash all those years up, really easy)
The y-axis needs to be very much longer (just record the 6.5-7.5m span in widely spaced mm)
Then you’re a real climate scientist advocate :)
Oh, and then Bambi comes back to life. Sort of like playing a country & western song backwards :)
If you quit, they win. Stick with it and continue to fight the battle for hearts and minds. Build up enough allies and over time and with some good fortune (such as a downturn in temperatures that will strike at the heart of their credibility) rationality will win over political bias.
“Stick with it and continue to fight the battle for hearts and minds.”
A great deal is revealed in this statement…far more than might meet a casual pass.
For a real skeptic—one who uses skepticism as a tool, not a rallying cry or a badge or a final destination, there never is a battle and the goal is never to win “hearts and minds”. If you liken skepticism to a to hammer, if the goal is to build a house, then you don’t try to “win hearts and minds” by rallying around the hammer.
The surest sign of fake-skepticism (yes, there is a less kind word for it), is that the fake-skeptic would like to “win hearts and minds”. As a real and honest skeptic, such as myself, every “truth” is provisional, so why would I want to “win hearts and minds” around my provisional truth? Every honest skeptic has their own unique combination of factors that have led them to their provisional truths. But they would never battle for hearts and minds for these always fluctuating provisional truths.
I am skeptical about AGW, but it is a relative skepticism. I am 95% sure that human activity is now the dominant driving force behind long-term climate change. But that means I am 5% skeptical about that. For the fake-skeptic, they believe AGW is wrong, and want to battle for “hearts and minds”, to bring others over to their beliefs.
You are a silly little dude, gatesy. I don’t see Scott claiming to be a “real skeptic”, whatever you think that means. You don’t get to define what a skeptic is and to what rights of expression a skeptic is entitled. A real skeptic is still permitted to fight political battles against those who want to impose taxation and regulation without representation. You would like for skeptics to just roll over, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And you should stop lying about being a skeptic.
R. Gates: I am skeptical about AGW, but it is a relative skepticism. I am 95% sure that human activity is now the dominant driving force behind long-term climate change. But that means I am 5% skeptical about that. For the fake-skeptic, they believe AGW is wrong, and want to battle for “hearts and minds”, to bring others over to their beliefs.
Yes. To you a “true” skeptic is a “true believer” pretending now and then to doubt something. Someone who writes that “the case for CO2-induced climate warming is full of holes” is to you a “fake” skeptic.
“Someone who writes that “the case for CO2-induced climate warming is full of holes” is to you a “fake” skeptic.”
_____
Nope, that wouldn’t not qualify someone to be a fake-skeptic. If they have analyzed the data and, in their judgment, it is “full of holes”, then they have a fair basis for their skepticism. It is when someone suggests fighting a battle for “hearts and minds” that they reveal their fake-skepticism.
All good scientists are skeptics. But fake-skeptics try to win “hearts and minds” and tend to political rhetoric or worse.
R. Gates: It is when someone suggests fighting a battle for “hearts and minds” that they reveal their fake-skepticism.
I disagree with you there. I think it is quite valuable for skeptics to open the hearts and mind of believers and voters to the fact that the case for limiting CO2 is full of holes. As long as the portrayal of the holes is reasonable, it does not matter a hoot whether the skepticism is “real” or “fake” by some believers’ definitions.
Consider the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is causing deep ocean warming: the obvious holes are (1) it is based on the rising sea level, the beginning of which antedates almost all of the anthropogenic CO2 by possibly hundreds of years; (2) the rise is far from uniform, with large segments of the ocean showing sea level declines and other large parts (possibly the majority) showing no change; (3) the surface and troposphere have shown no warming for 17 years, and no mechanism has been proposed by which anthropogenic CO2 in the troposphere could cause ocean warming without causing concomitant troposphere and surface warming; (4) deep warming will not match the surface warming for hundreds of years due to the larger mass and specific heat of the ocean, giving any threatened species (if there are any) time to evolve adjustments. It is important that recipients of messages to cut coal usage and slow the electrification of the poorer parts of the world get the message and open their hearts and minds to these liabilities in the case that such investments of time, effort and capital might have any beneficial effect.
Whether the proponent of this case that the case for action is full of holes is a “true” skeptic or a “fake” skeptic is much less important than whether the proponent has himself or herself presented a serious case. I think that your responses to my comments to date have been inadequate, and I hope that readers occasionally take my comments seriously enough to think about them for a while and carry out explorations of their own. The matter is too important to be dismissed by the (ad hominem) claim that the writer is a “fake” skeptic, or accepted by the (ad hominem) claim that the writer is a “true” skeptic.
R. Gates, I’m sorry that you’re have difficulty comprehending the point of this article and the associated commentary thread. Let me help you a bit here:
“In the near term, I will remain a member of the AGU and I am highly supportive of Peter Webster’s efforts to work within the organization to effect change.” – J. Curry from the article above.
The battle for hearts and minds is in support of the freedom of scientific exploration and for legitimate points of view to be heard, rather than having them censored because of some dubious, oversimplified ‘consensus’.
Pointman put it most eloquently in his article The Age of Unenlightenment: “Even a casual acquaintance with the history of science teaches us one simple thing; it advances across a battlefield drenched in the blood of sacred cows. The Earth revolves around the Sun? Something falls to Earth because it’s being pulled by some invisible force rather than just having weight? Space can bend and time can run at different rates depending on where you are in something called a gravity well? Continents can actually move? Where’s your head? Are you insane?”
Which is why the battle for hearts and minds over the integrity of scientific inquiry is paramount in this new dark age of unenlightenment.
==> “Pointman put it most eloquently…”
Now that there, is some “eloquence.”
Joshua demonstrating selective reading at its ‘finest’.
This was, frankly, more interesting- the EU science minister noting the politicization of science:
“Let’s imagine a Commissioner over the weekend thinks, ‘Let’s ban the use of credit cards in the EU because credit cards lead to personal debt’. So that commissioner will come in on Monday morning and say to his or her Director General, ‘Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.’ The Commissioner’s staff might resist the idea but in the end, she says, “they will do exactly what they’re asked” and “find the evidence” to show that credit card use leads to personal debt, even though this may not be the case in reality.”
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-twisting-facts-fit-political-agenda-chief-scientist-says-302399
Even the left has admitted this happened in the GMO debate (Keith Kloor, Mark Lynas), the nuclear debate (George Monbiot, James Hansen), and it’s infection of anthropology and the social sciences is so bad the examples are too numerous to state. If you want to get a good sense of why conservatives are skeptical about new research that just happens to support a progressive meme, a good start is to Google Bellesiles or start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
But this doesn’t happen with AGW. Oh no, perish the thought. Couldn’t happen there- because there is a consensus. Of the equivalent of the Commissioner’s staff. So it’s all good.
+1
That email said: “There is an extensive body of scientific literature that supports the view highlighted in AGU’s position statement that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last fifty years.” ”
That AGU’s statement is wrong: (1) climate change can not be evaluated in only a timescale of 50 years, (2) human influence claim is based in two invented parameters: climate sensitivity and total aerosol RF.
So, to the people in AGU, do not be stupid!!! and, please, think for yourselves!!!. And in general: you!, reader, don’t let IPCC think for yourself!.
I base my refuting argument in my pdf:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/
Antonio, while you are correct, as usual, no-one who matters is listening. Try to tell Dr. Susan Seestrom.
The AGU certainly seems to be a broad church.
Judith
Advocacy appears to me not to have core values, it is ideology. Rather, the purpose of advocacy is messaging. It seems to me that you are looking for core values that a trade organization like AGU was not set up to uphold. Advocacy on behalf of its members is the mission.
Core values are the property of the individuals who have bound together to form advocacy organizations like AGU.
Hired executive directors, responsive to the Governing Board, try to mold and shape future Board appointments to a finite agenda. This appears to be the case for AGU.
Members whose core values no long align with the Exec and or board have participatory alternatives. Revolutions begin with these circumstances.
How many of you are now mad as hell?
The central point of my article argued for a forum of ideas designed to stimulate use of data and independent thought among students, and to encourage recognition of the complexity of the topic. However apparently our student population is composed of fragile folk who should not be exposed to controversy – a pity, because presenting science as an unarguable “consensus” is quite counter-productive to inspiring young scientists’ curiosity.
The student population is full of people who know they will not be allowed to graduate if they do not subscribe to alarmist consensus.
Andy Dressler, after he lectured us and talked to us, did say that none of our NASA Alumni Group would pass his most basic freshman class because we were too Skeptic. (not likely his exact words)
Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.
[The Inquisition exits]
Chapman: I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition…
[JARRING CHORD]
[The cardinals burst in]
Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms – Oh damn!
[To Cardinal Biggles] I can’t say it – you’ll have to say it.
Biggles: What?
Ximinez: You’ll have to say the bit about ‘Our chief weapons are …’
Biggles: [rather horrified]: I couldn’t do that…
[Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again]
Chapman: I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The cardinals enter]
Biggles: Er…. Nobody…um….
Ximinez: Expects…
Biggles: Expects… Nobody expects the…um…the Spanish…um…
Ximinez: Inquisition.
Biggles: I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect –
Ximinez: Our chief weapons are…
Biggles: Our chief weapons are…um…er…
Walt: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, and thanks to Monty Python for the heads up!
Judith,
From the 2012 AGU Annual Report:
“Mission:
The purpose of the American Geophysical Union is
to promote discovery in Earth and space science for
the benefit of humanity.
Vision:
AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and
space scientists that collaboratively advances and
communicates science and its power to ensure a
sustainable future.”
.
Hummm…. ‘science for the benefit of humanity’…… ‘advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’. I wonder if any among the faithful have considered that “science” does not have to be conducted to do anything except advance understanding; scientific understanding is neutral when it comes to morals and values.
With those as mission and vision, the rest is pretty much automatic: they are using science to advocate for their desired policies, not simply pursuing scientific discovery. This is clearly not primarily a scientific organization, it is an advocacy group, and science is just a tool for advocacy. Any science which does not advance their policy views is not allowed; it is nothing more than that.
That’s a better vision than to aim to destroy the earth.
Or to hold dominion over the earth, or whatever deal that religious organizations put in their charter.
“That’s a better vision than to aim to destroy the earth.”
I have not yet read or heard anyone, anywhere, anytime, state that as a vision. Do you have anything to say?
michael hart,
Of course nobody aims to destroy the Earth. Such rubbish comments are part and parcel of the illness suffered by the AGU, and indeed, by climate science in general, along with the many troglodytes who mindlessly support it: it’s nothing but political advocacy masquerading as science….to wit, ‘if you don’t agree with us then you are not just mistaken, you are evil, and so must be silenced’. I find such thinking similar to that of the mullah’s who issue fatwas against the the blasphemous, and just as morally despicable.
steve –
==> ” I find such thinking similar to that of the mullah’s who issue fatwas against the the blasphemous, ”
Yes, I agree. What the AGU did is indeed very similar to the issuing of fatwas, for example the ordering of Rushie’s execution. But my question for you is why did you pick that particular analogy? Why not Lysenkoism, Nazism, Fascism, the Sandinistas, the Inquisition, Pol Pot, Ghengis Kahn, McCarthyism and of course my favorite, a “reign of terror?” Please explain your rationale.
==> ” I find such thinking similar to that of the mullah’s who issue fatwas against the the blasphemous, ”
Yes, I agree. What the AGU did is indeed very similar to the issuing of fatwas, for example the ordering of Rushie’s execution. But my question for you is why did you pick that particular analogy? Why not Lysenkoism, Naz*sm, Fascism, the Sandinistas, the Inquisition, Pol Pot, Ghengis Kahn, McCarthyism and of course my favorite, a “reign of terror?” Please explain your rationale.
Rushdie (note the D). Salman Rushdie. Author of Satanic Verses.
Joshua,
You go (as usual) a bridge too far. There is, IMO, no defense for a scientific society becoming little more than political advocates. That they muzzle any of their own members who disagree with the majority speaks badly about the organization and more so, about those who dominate it. No scientific society ought to be censoring its own members.
Joshua,
I have wondered for a while: what is your background/interest? Mine is 40 years in science and engineering. That makes me, perhaps, more sensitive than most to the suggestion than technical views, even those that do not align with the majority, ought to be suppressed. My experience shows that the majority are often mistaken. A fair discussion on the merits of any subject is all that is needed, and people can judge for themselves. My objection to the AGU as an organization is that they want to control who can speak; this is contrary to any reasonable conception of good science… or at least contrary to the conception of good science I have always operated under.
steve –
I understand the reasons for your sensitivity. Although I think that the description of: “the AGU as an organization … want[s] to control who can speak;” is a bit over the top, I can understand where you’re coming from in that description. I don’t really support what the AGU did in this situation…but I do think that this is an issue that has two legitimate sides that come into conflict. I tend to look at these sorts of issues as being nuanced and complicated, and not really susceptible to black hat vs. white hat simplistic self-victimization and demonizing that stem from identity aggression and identity protection behaviors.
My background is quite varied – not sure which aspect you might be interested in. My interest in these discussions is (1) in reading comments that challenge and therefore deepen my own views and understanding, and (2) in the nature nature how biases influence reasoning.
My comment above, that was directed at you, was targeting the hyperbolic, waaaaaaay over the top (IMO) reactions that are so prevalent in the climate wars. It happens on both sides, of course, but my primary point of focus is how much it happens behind the “skeptical” battle lines.
Which then brings me to an observation – since we’re “sharing” here.
Truth told, I am a bit puzzled by some of your comments, as often I think that your comments are well-reasoned and sophisticated and interesting to read – as they offer a substantive challenge to my own views. Yet at other times I find them waaaaaay over-the-top and hyperbolic. For example, in the previous thread you distanced yourself from the bag o’ “skeptics” (including Judith) who determined nefarious intent among those using “climate change” as opposed to “global warming” (despite the obvious logical flaws that led them to their conclusions) – yet in this comment above you liken the AGU to Muftis issuing fatwas? You speak of “mindless troglodytes”? That’s the kind of gutter talk I usually expect from a Monfort or GaryM – not someone who (IMO) also sometimes writes interesting comments such as yourself.
Joshua,
I do think that there is a terrible tendency for people (on all sides of any significant policy disagreement) to demonize those who they disagree with. There is plenty of blame on all sides to go around in the climate wars.
But for me, the key question is: Who is trying to keep people from voicing their views? As a scientist (and sometimes engineer), that is for me the most important question in evaluating ‘who is right and who is wrong’ in any debate about factual reality. My observation to date is that many well known climate scientists have consciously acted to suppress opposing views. I was (and remain) appalled by the kinds of behind-the-scenes activities revealed in the UEA emails. These were not people acting as scientists; they were acting as policy activists, and sometimes unscrupulous ones at that. And it seems (sadly) that the AGU as an organizations is pretty much wedded to doing much the same. Despite the AGU statements of mission and vision, science is most certainly NOT public policy, even if the AGU majority membership might imagine, or hope, that it is.
If you sometimes find my comments “way over the top”, perhaps it is because I am so very offended by (and I admit, sometimes very angry about) what I see as corruption of science, something which is fundamentally apolitical, by those who want only to use it as a tool to advance their policy agenda. Science is, and ought to be, a thing of beauty, much like a Mozart composition. I am personally offended when it is corrupted and debased as a political tool. My observation is that there is a lot of that happening in climate science.
Steve –
Thanks for that response. I don’t have time right now for comments other than drive-bys.
I get why you’re angry. My criticism is with the reasoning influence by that anger, not with the existence of the anger in and of itself.
”
I get why you’re angry.
”
For what it’s worth – I do too.
”
Science is, and ought to be, a thing of beauty, much like a Mozart composition. I am personally offended when it is corrupted and debased as a political tool. My observation is that there is a lot of that happening in climate science.
”
Personally, I would have gone with Bach. But, hey.
It’s all fun and games until someone looses a planet.
Dear Dr. Heisenberg-
Thank you for your submission. Regrettably, we cannot accept your manuscript on quantum mechanics based on the significant scientific consensus that Newtonian physics is correct. Quite frankly, we are dismayed that you chose the refutationist approach to scientific inference over the clearly superior consensus approach, which is ample proof that Newton’s laws always work. In addition, we find your predictions of contraptions like magnetic resonance imaging machines, diodes and transistors to rather fanciful applications of your so called ‘theory’.
Sincerely, without remorse, and with great personal insecurity,
-EOS Editor
Heisenberg was a denialist. Wikipedia says so. “In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
+1
Touche! Well played sir!
Rev. Hypo… wasn’t there once a 97% consensus for the validity of phrenology … particularly amongst phrenologist … BTW, I am really not a scientist.
Denialism is not a form of inference. Anyway, me thinks you missed the point.
Comedy by Python, John Cleese vs Sarah Palin by FOMD!
Premise by Dagfinn, non-rational implication by Calvin and Hobbes!
Advice to Michael Asten Unjustified rejection is a fact of scientific life. Even less pleasantly, justified rejection also is a fact of scientific life.
In either case, the best recourse is straightforward: recruit respected coauthors, rewrite carefully, and resubmit.
Editors in particular respect this constructive response for two reasons: the work itself gets better and the scientific community as a whole becomes stronger.
Corollary If you cannot recruit even *ONE* respected scientist to work with you and help to improve/extend your work, then perhaps your ideas ain’t much good.
‘Consenus’ indicates emotion is in play. Mass hysteria is a problem
A major problem with science is the large number of liars
“I am a medical researcher and quantum systems engineer, whose experimental research interests focus upon quantum spin metrology, and whose theoretical interests focus upon large-scale quantum simulation, in service of applications in regenerative medicine”
Just to many people denying reality and stealing the hard earned esteem granted to actual researchers.
http://mathoverflow.net/users/11394/john-sidles
Small correction: the “97% consensus” paper is not from Peter Cook, but from John Cook, who is only 3% as funny as Peter Cook.
That’s an insult to Peter Cook.
HaroldW,
If I was funny, I would resent being compared to John Cook.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The Editor stated that the decision is “reject” because “climate change ….is no longer a topic of scientific controversy. “
I suppose they are right. The science is settled. The earth hasn’t warmed in 17 years. Humans have added just 0.5 deg to global temps. If we immediately ended all American energy use,the global temp would drop about 0.08 deg by 2050. Climate models bear little resemblance to reality.
The science is settled. Time to move on.
“The earth hasn’t warmed in 17 years…”
____
Yes, this is their story and they are sticking with it, regardless of whether it is true or not. To maintain this position, those adhering to it must:
1. Conflate the term “earth” and “tropospheric sensible heat”.
2. Not consider the cryosphere or oceans to be part of the “earth”.
3. Ignore the fact that the past 10 years have been the warmest on instrument record.
4. Ignore at least 90% of the climate system and forms of energy.
So, it makes good (and most importantly for propaganda purposes, confusing) fiction to suggest the “earth hasn’t warmed in 17 years”, but only an intentionally myopic fake-skeptic or terminally uniformed would end the sentence there without discussing points 1-4 above.
Sorry R. Gates. When you climb a hill, you are at the highest average height even when you have stopped climbing. The “warmest 10 years” does not mean “warming”. After the “warming” it will be “warmer” but not necessarily “warming” still. So you fall into the same trap you try to set for the “skeptics”.
I suppose they are right. The science is settled. The earth surface temperature hasn’t increased in 17 years.
There you go Gatesy, not get yourself a tissue and run along.
To R. Gates…
Perhaps my terminology was weak but after review and examining your 4 points, I’ll stick by my original phrasing.
The ocean seems to have no acceleration in sea level rise from the trend line. SSTs have warmed very little if any in recent years. Doesn’t seem to be a huge store of heat there. The cryosphere seems quite robust with very large sea ice area measured recently.
So, lower tropospheric temperature trends seem quite flat for what is closing in on two decades and I don’t see any obvious data from that other ” 90% of the climate system and forms of energy” that contradict this.
Where, exactly, is all that heat hiding and why won’t it come out where we can see it ? Perhaps you are right that I’m “terminally uninformed” but if it’s that hard to find, how am I supposed to believe somehow it’s “catastrophic”?
There’s also this:
Is Earth in Energy Deficit.
After it is universally recognized that global warming is not following the alarmist path this series of correspondence will provide a starting point for a good discussion of the scientific method.
The mentality exhibited here is similar to what was behind the protesting and withdrawal of recent commencement speakers. On the campuses, I understand the reaction by the students. But where were the adults? Regardless of the topic and the circumstances, shouldn’t a guiding principle for all of our institutions be a free exchange of thoughts and views?
The saddest part of all this is that it is so predictable.
AGU’s position statement that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last fifty years.”.
Agreed. .. And the essential significance therein passes by unappreciated.
Yes, we emit a lot of CO2 and that does change climate in the immediate instantaneous differential meaning of such. What is not clear is how significant this is over an extended interval of time.
The GCM incorporates multiple positive feedbacks which predict runaway to snowball earth or intolerable greenhouse hot.
Arguments provided to explain why the earth’s climate has escaped the fate of frozen solid or intolerably hot put their faith in external or or internal cyclical or chaotic forcing. Those arguments are no more convincing than the hope that chaotic fluctuations in variability can escape null aggregate influence.
Received via email from Roger Pielke Sr:
Hi Judy – I agree that this censoring of views by the AGU of its own members is disturbing. As you recall, I have had similar experiences with my most recent one the reason I posted the guest post
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/
rather than an EOS Forum article. The Forum submission was which was rejected by the EOS Editors after a superficial review and only after several months..
I documented the rejection on publishing my AGU Minority Statement at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/a-change-in-the-agu-policy-on-presenting-alternative-scientific-viewpoints/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-response-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/
The AGU is lossing its role as an honest broker of scientific issues, as related to climate, and becoming an advocacy group.
Following is my e-mail exchange with the Editor of EOS
*********
From: Roger Pielke Sr
Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Forum submission
To: Barbara Richman
Barb
You certainly, when we first met, did not have a gate keeping policy. When we met in person, you seemed to be aware of this history with EOS, and said you would make sure that policy did not continue under your leadership.
However, that is the actual way EOS is working now, as exemplified in both the cases I brought up in my e-mail.
In terms of my minority statement, it did not have the visibility it would have had if the actual statement was not explicitly prevented from being published. That is a clear case of gate keeping.
In our current submission, there is but one referee. The comment of the review can be easily refuted. Yet, it took three months, and a plea to you, to even get a decision. The Editor did not ask us to respond to the review, but took a side on it.
We can add more references (but are hampered by the word count limit). The comment “approximate calculations that are not well explained or justified” is bogus as we took our numbers from the peer reviewed literature. Yet the Editor did not even query us on this.
In addition, by requiring a particular person to be the responsible Editor, who has a clear bias, including who they pick to review, conflicts with the editorial policy we had at MWR and JAS when I was Chief-Editor. I just requested another Editor, with new referees, to oversee the review if an author felt the chosen Editor was not being objective.
Thus EOS does have an effective (and inappropriate, in my view) gate keeping policy.
We may elect to submit our article elsewhere. I will discuss with my co-authors.
If that is the case, not being able to publish in the EOS Forum, despite the policy statement that
“Forum contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion….Appropriate Forum topics include ….discussion related to current research in the disciplines covered by AGU (especially scientific controversies),”
is a clear failure of this policy. I do not see any other way you can spin that as we clearly fit in that description.
Finally, (and I am not alone in this viewpoint by other AGU members), the AGU (including EOS), in the arena of climate science, has become known as an advocacy organization, not an honest broker of the state of knowledge in this area of science.
I was hoping when you and I first met, and when I was subsequently invited to join EOS, that you would be breaking this mode, at least for EOS. Unfortunately, this does not seem to the case.
Best Regards
Roger A. Pielke, Sr.,
Judith
As I posted earlier, and Paul Matthews provided a link to, in Britain it appears difficult to carry out research into non consensus subjects.
Climate science tends to be dominated by the Anglo sphere so it would be interesting if , say faustino, could inform us of the policy in Australia?
Tonyb
Judith
Intriguingly, over at the bishops ;
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/6/3/congratulations-dk.html#comments
Demetris Koutsoyiannis,comments; ‘….In general, I would not say that rejections are always politically motivated or dictated by the climate change orthodoxy. Well, often they are (examples are contained in the link above and elsewhere) but not always. Criticizing or opposing established ideas makes rejections more likely, whatever these ideas are. In contrast, as put by Steve, including magic phrases like “in a warming world …” (especially in the paper title) may make the paper rejection-proof…..’
tonyb
Judith, thanks for additionally posting the Pielke experience. Plainly there is a ‘policy’ in place at AGU and EOS that is anti science and in clear violation of the AGU charter. It is for AGU members to fix, although the damage done goes well beyond AGU.
This set of episodes deserves more US exposure than only here. Perhaps in light of SOTU ‘science is settled’ and newly proposed EPA regs, there might be some in Congress who would find this usefully interesting in an election year. Lamar Smith and Mitch McConnel come readily to mind.
At what point to you and Dr. Pielke Sr. move from the AGU “losing” a virtue;
The AGU is losing its role as an honest broker of scientific issues, as related to climate, and becoming an advocacy group.
To publicly realizing it’s a done deal, the AGU hasn’t been an “honest broker” for a generation at least. The leadership group at the AGU as with many professional associations is dominated by the party of academic preference and has been advocating left-wing meme’s like AGW for decades.
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-new-regressives/?singlepage=true
By pretending it’s a coin toss to be decided in the future distorts what it already represents. There is minority dissent at the AGU but the core leadership are in the pockets of the political consensus and the establishment which is green, leftist (armchair, country-club hypocrites as that may be) and pro-AGW regulatory affirming.
By mealy mouthing it, “losing” instead of “lost” it’s “role” acts as an enabler to their advocacy. All these fraud scientists hitting the media about their objectivity and noble science purpose, what a joke. Climate science is politically corrupt and a little political DNA research would quickly confirm that and to whose interests they serve. We should start with basic honesty about who the players are and why they are predisposed to a “cause” out of the gate.
EOS = Edit Out the Science.
Tonyb @ 5.13: I’m not as closely connected with the field as you are in the UK, but I think that in terms of academics, public research bodies and the media, it is worse in Australia. The current government is attempting to wind back our costly GHG emissions reduction policies, but is fiercely opposed by the “urban elite”and may have little success because of our Senate system, where – in spite of having a clear election majority on a very specific platform, it is likely that it will not be able to implement many of its policies, including the GHG-related ones. The ALP had its lowest vote share (low 30s %) for over 100 years, at which time it was a fledgling party contesting its third election. But so what? It didn’t listen to the majority when in power, it won’t now, and the CAGW crowd is far more entrenched in our institutions than the few sceptics; the academics among the sceptics have to an extent been black-balled, with petty actions such as removing their e-mail access.
Faustino
So it appears from the limited facts we have, that the Anglo sphere climate establishment (Britain, US and Australia) are not only reluctant to use the historic observed record, but that research against the consensus view is discouraged.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, or one who believes this is all a hoax. But certainly circumstances are conspiring to make it difficult to advance our knowledge.
Check. But is it check mate against sceptics?
tonyb
Looks like George Orwell anticipated the mind-set of the AGU by more than half a century. There’s an example of REAL predictive power!
The king still has no clothes on and the liberals do still not notice.
I should have said that this series of correspondence provides a starting point for a good discussion of the scientific method regardless of whether global warming follows the alarmist path, since there is no justification for censorship under any circumstances. The fact that the dominant theory, against which no arguments or evidence is being permitted, fails to explain the known facts of current or past warming just highlights the ludicrous nature of the situation. This landscape will provide much spice to the discussion in hindsight.
False claim by swood1000, surfer citizen-science by FOMD!
Nowadays even ordinary citizen-surfers see clearly the accelerating reality of global warming.
Conclusion Climate-change denialism is doomed to scientific *AND* political extinction. And AGU editors see this as clearly as citizens.
accelerating reality of global warming. … Especially when it comes to living middle class consumer lifestyle. A stampede to seize their entitlement before it gets denied by warmist intellectual do gooders.
“The central point of my article argued for a forum of ideas designed to stimulate use of data and independent thought among students, and to encourage recognition of the complexity of the topic.”
Universities don’t exist tot each students to think for themselves. They exist to produce foot soldiers for the “consensus.” The consensus on climate, “social justice,” law, history…you name it.
Students are not taught critical analysis, they are merely taught to be critical of dissent from the consensus – two very different things.
But hey, at least no one claims to be surprised by this latest example of the increasingly ubiquitous stifling of dissent by progressives.
You obviously do not have kids who recently graduated from the same universities my kids attended.
Maybe Georgia Tech needs help in teaching their students to think for themselves.
JCH,
If your kids know how to engage in critical analysis, maybe they could give you lessons.
GaryM, no university can force a student to think. Similarly, no university can prevent it.
Tom Fuller,
True, but irrelevant to what I said.
No school can force you to learn critical analysis, or stop you from learning it. What they can do is teach it. And the vast majority don’t.
The professoriate is overwhelmingly progressive. And progressives do not want critical analysis among their followers. They might start actually thinking for themselves on issues like “climate science,” or the unbelievable incompetence in all areas by the worst president this country has ever had.
And then how would they remain the elite?
Gary, you write “No school can force you to learn critical analysis, or stop you from learning it. What they can do is teach it. And the vast majority don’t. ”
What has happened in the last 70 years? My mentor at Cambridge was Dr. G.B.B.M Sutherland. The first essay I did for him, I reproduced what was in the text books. His critique was “This is useless, and not what I am looking for. What I want to know is what YOU think on the subject”. I have never forgotten this.
Jim –
==> “What has happened in the last 70 years? ”
Kids [schools, manners, morals, the work ethic, etc.) today ain’t like they used to be.*
*and that has been true for millennia.
Maybe we liberals aren’t all what our forefathers were. But I just would like you to say that to someone like Bertrand Russell. Just once.
GaryM –
Wow!
Just a couple of days ago, you said this:
And today you say this:
So over 3 days, he’s gone from perhaps the worst to the worst ever. Imagine how upset he’ll be to hear about your change in perspective.
Tom Fuller,
Well, you in particular are not like your progressive forefathers. At least I don’t see it. You are not a fan of explicit fascism like Woodrow Wilson (Though most modern progressive economic policies are a form of economic fascism, I don’t expect you to agree.). Nor I suspect are you a racist eugenicist like Margaret Sanger. (Although I wager you support her progeny, Planned Parenthood, that is still pursuing her eugenicist polices, albeit covertly.) And I think you would not support Prohibition. (But I suspect you have a certain fondness for Bloomberg outlawing Big Gulps.)
I would classify you as a default progressive. You actually favor the policies you do because you think they are actually about “fairness” and “for the children.” Unfortunately.
Its funny how garyM doesnt apply critical thinking skills to his own ideas.
Here garyM
I will give you a writing assignment. Like many of the writing assignments I would give at University. The assignment consisted of making everyone argue for a position they didnt believe in. Typical rhetorical (sophist) assignment.
The text I want you to consider is the following:
‘Universities don’t exist tot each students to think for themselves. They exist to produce foot soldiers for the “consensus.”
Critique this idea. your assignment is to take this idea and critique it.
you can spend a couple paragraphs expanding on the quoted statement, but the conclusion of the paper should be that this idea is wrong.
You realize that the first teachers of critical thinking were the sophists.
Mosher,
I would be happy too. But you have to do the same. You write the argument in support of that proposition. Let me know when you are done, and I will post first.
I am happy to engage in debate. But I stopped doing homework assigned by progressives when I graduated law school.
Jim Cripwell,
I have tried to post two responses, both of which just disappeared. I give up. Short answer – it intentional, not an accident.
Somebody cue the Final Jeopardy music for Mosher….
Why am I not surprised that Mosher is a fan of sophistry?
The university has a long history in Western Christendom. Beginning as (roughly) an institution intended to provide a Christian education to the rowdy sons of important warlords and other high-ranking hooligans (as well as keeping them away from wider society), the institution itself evolved with the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the growth of rigorous experimental science, the Industrial Revolution, the anti-religious sentiments involved with those phenomena as well as Socialism and other Reactions to the Industrial Revolution.
It would be highly simplistic to suggest that there were no differences among individual universities, universities in a group within different countries, and especially the “university” as an institution as it evolved in colonial (e.g. America, Australia) and non-European cultures as they introduced European institutions and imitations thereof.
Therefore, while it might be defensible to suggest that, in the minds of many providing control over, and funds for, their particular universities ‘Universities […] exist to produce foot soldiers for the “consensus”’, it would be completely incorrect to assume that statement to be true of all universities, or even the “university” tradition in all countries and cultures.
A more fundamental problem with the suggestion that ‘Universities don’t exist tot each students to think for themselves’ is that many such students already know how to think for themselves when they enter university. The repressive environment implied in this statement might cause some fraction of them to give up and join the consensus, or drop out rather than deal with the contradiction, but some fraction can be presumed to have either become open rebels, or “gone underground”, pretending to join the consensus while quietly thinking for themselves.
For this latter group, what the described universities actually do is teach people to think for themselves under adverse conditions such as persecution. Given the widespread prevalence of opposition to and persecution of people who think for themselves in wider society, this could well be the most significant result of such universities. How much this would constitute their (primary) “purpose” would depend on the perspectives of the people looking for “purpose”.
It is not easy to kill Science, but it is certainly possible, as it was already done at the end of Antiquity. One only has to be exceptionally strenuous in this quest, like AGU &. ilk. However, one’s better keep in mind that the Dark Ages that follow involve a complete elite change, while the general populace is only driven to partial extinction by magadeaths.
> I am increasingly conflicted about my membership in the AGU, with its irresponsible advocacy that is compromising its own core values.
Such irresponsible advocacy could become alarming.
Alarming core principles
Open exchange of ideas and information
Diversity of backgrounds, scientific ideas and approaches
Equality and inclusiveness
An active role in educating and nurturing the next generation of scientists
An engaged membership
Excellence and integrity in everything we do
When we are at our best as an organization, we embody these values in our behavior as follows:
We advance Earth and space science by catalyzing and supporting the efforts of individual scientists within and outside the membership.
As a learned society, we serve the public good by fostering quality in the Earth and space science and by publishing the results of research.
We welcome all in academic, government, industry and other venues who share our interests in understanding the Earth, planets and their space environment, or who seek to apply this knowledge to solving problems facing society.
Our scientific mission transcends national boundaries.
Individual scientists worldwide are equals in all AGU activities.
Cooperative activities with partner societies of all sizes worldwide enhance the resources of all, increase the visibility of Earth and space science, and serve individual scientists, students, and the public.
We are our members.
Dedicated volunteers represent an essential ingredient of every program.
AGU staff work flexibly and responsively in partnership with volunteers to achieve our goals and objectives.
@@@@@@@@@@
Yep, hitting on all cylinders so they say. AGU at its best as an organization.
Of course I just selected those core principles that irresponsible advocacy can’t compromise.
Alarming censorship:
http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf
Either Asten agrees with this, or he does not. If he does not, he falls out of the AGU’s radar. Then so much the worse for any alarmist call to censorship. The open exchange of ideas does not imply that anything goes.
Even Judy has a radar.
Is AGU allowed a radar?
Maybe only Judith has radar?
Or must all radar’s conform to Judith?
Does AGU not ‘toe the line’ re: radar?
Just questions.
I don’t see how exploring ideas that 97% of climate scientists agree with and many study is falling outside the radar. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is what the problem is mostly about and the biggest unknown. If agreeing with the AGUs alarmism for urgent action is the prerequisite for being in the ‘open ideas and exchange’ club or the ‘diversity of scientific ideas and approaches’ club let alone the ‘equality and inclusiveness’ club, then the AGU radar unit is missing many mainstream incoming flights.
John,
No journal or association newsletter is under any obligation to publish anything. They publish what they want to publish.
People who think they have something terribly important to say can shop it around, publish on their own blog, print it and stick it on a wall. Anything.
Just stop frickin’ whining, whingeing, belly-aching, moaning, crying, fainting and otherwise acting like drama-queens when one (1, 1 FFS!) little assoc newsletter isn’t interested in your missive.
Michael,
It’s not my missive. I’m not drama queening. Just pointing out some rather inconvenient core principles by the AGU that appear to be nothing more than pretty curtains. I can’t help it if this upsets you so much. Maybe take a break from blogging a few days and it will all blow over, then you can resume advocating against Judy on a topic less sensitive to you.
John,
‘your’ is obviously not in reference to you….or apparently not.
No where do those ‘core principles’ say that the AGU newsletter has to print every submission they get.
Go back and read Asten’s submission – he even directly acknowledges that it might not get published.
The petulant whining is pathetic.
”
The open exchange of ideas does not imply that anything goes.
”
Anything goes – but most of it needn’t go very far.
Feyerabend on Galileo:
”
The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.
”
Rational and just honest brokers can never legitimize revisionism – unless their motives are politically opportune.
Such honest brokers might consider whether or not to proceed expeditiously with the legitimization of global economic revisionism – lest physics does it for them.
willard playing stupid
“Such irresponsible advocacy could become alarming.”
When Judith calls for immediate action OR ELSE, then you have alarmism.
When she uses threats and intimidation rather than reasoned debate, then she is alarmist.
It’s not a hard thing to understand.
Question is why does willard only play stupid here?
”
Question is why does willard only play stupid here?
”
Question is why does Mosher care?
You impugn willard’s play skillz – but constantly presume that Judy’s rhetorical games require your elaborate parsing and expository wisdom to be understood ‘correctly’.
Honest brokerage. It’s not a hard thing to understand.
Next.
“No where do those ‘core principles’ say that the AGU newsletter has to print every submission they get.”
Agreed, but the reasons for rejection certainly don’t match with their core principles very well.
“The petulant whining is pathetic.”
Yes, about as pathetic as the petulant whining I read here about Judy’s advocating habits.
John Carpenter | June 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
“Agreed, but the reasons for rejection certainly don’t match with their core principles very well.”
Yes they do.
Judith opined;
“The letter from the Editor to Asten realizes my worst fear about the AGU statement on climate change: that it will be used as a basis for making editorial decisions to reject papers or to not even send them out for review.”
But the reality is just the opposite.
The letter to Asten suggested that the substance of his debate would be more appropriately submitted to the journal.
The drama queening has not only been pathetic, but stupid.
The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse | June 4, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
“… but constantly presume that Judy’s rhetorical games require your elaborate parsing and expository wisdom to be understood ‘correctly’.”
Didn’t you know that Moshpit is the self-proclaimed expert in all things Judith? Only he understands ‘her mind’.
Rev
Question is why does Mosher care?
1. because I like puzzles.
2. because I get to like puzzles.
3. because my real purpose is something else.
########################
You impugn willard’s play skillz – but constantly presume that Judy’s rhetorical games require your elaborate parsing and expository wisdom to be understood ‘correctly’.
1. no, calling his game does not impugn his skills
2. he skillfully plays stupid.
3. none of my parsing is elaborate. it is elementary freshman rhetoric.
4. There is no such thing as a correct understanding. Understanding
like models is a tool. it is useful or not useful.
#############
Honest brokerage. It’s not a hard thing to understand.
Rev. there is no such ting as honest brokerage. There is no place outside the game. no priveledged viewpoint. There are just positions. you dont argue for yours very well. I would have failed you.
Michael
Didn’t you know that Moshpit is the self-proclaimed expert in all things Judith? Only he understands ‘her mind’.
hmm.
1. if you took two seconds to follow anything I say or write you’d understand that ” understanding minds” is not what I recommend.
2. I recommend looking at behavior. leave minds to people who believe
is fairy tales.
3. I’m not an expert in Judith. I don’t know judith. I’ve met her and talked to her and read much of what she writes. So, I just have a bigger corpus to
work with than you do.
4. you should spend time trying to make sense of the entire corpus.
“The drama queening has not only been pathetic, but stupid.”
Yeah, some people make such a fuss over what Judy is saying all the time.
Steven Mosher | June 4, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
” I recommend looking at behavior.”
Indeed.
I’ve paid careful attention to Judith’s long-term pattern of behaviour; personal attacks, evidence-free broad brush smears, victim-card playing, credulous anti-IPCCism, calls for critique yet intolerant of criticism, etc etc.
” leave minds to people who believe is fairy tales.”
Yes, it’s all yours.
Do you forget any lukewarm feedback loop, John?
“The letter to Asten suggested that the substance of his debate would be more appropriately submitted to the journal.”
Where is the logic in that, though? Why would consensus be a good argument for rejection in one context but not the other?
Dagfinn,
I assume because if someone wanted to analyse data in some new way or with new insights, that would make a potentially good journal article.
Steven Mosher
When Judith calls for immediate action OR ELSE, then you have alarmism.
When she uses threats and intimidation rather than reasoned debate, then she is alarmist.
That kind of behaviour might be alarming but it’s not “alarmism”.
Steven Mosher | June 4, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
”
Rev. there is no such ting as honest brokerage.
”
”
I would have failed you.
”
So devoid of introspection, so subjunctively amusing, and so very predictable.
Carry on!
“Do you forget any lukewarm feedback loop, John?”
Willard, I forget a lot of stuff… all the time. Gimme a better hint.
John,
The feedback observed in conversations might provide the same wiggling room as Dick has with the feedback he notices by looking at the clouds.
You may call it the eristic hypothesis.
”
You may call it the eristic hypothesis.
”
willard wins teh internets.
Willard, truth can be hard to discern of an image between two mirrors.
Indeed, John.
Sometimes I believe it’s mirror images all the way up.
In 1999 the ‘consensus’ view of the human genome was that it contained between 70,000 to 80,000 genes*.
In 2014 it stands at 19,000.
No one was black-balled, no one harried and no one was ostracized. In fact, the reactions were 1) Cooooool, 2) How did we screw that up? 3) Animal kingdom guesstimate betting pool.
I suspect that people in real sciences know that we can eventually find the truth, so we don’t tend to play politics to defend out turf. It is hard to defend turf if you are not sure if it exists or not.
In climate science, none of the CAGW’sts are secure and so behave by like a bunch of religious nutters terrified of heresy and potential apostasy.
*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7587/
Just ask the AGU how it explains the 1940 global temperature singularity. So long as it fails to cope with this singularity, its science will be accused of dodging an important element of atmospheric physics. Why did the average global temperature fall so rapidly after 1940 and not recover to the 1940 value until 1970?
The game is that there’s no venue to pose the question, isn’t it? Similar to the IPCC “rejecting” peer reviews that didn’t support non-science and CAGW.
Well, they (AGU) have some interesting new journals which are open access. I wonder how much it would cost to submit a paper to JAMES for example.
Anyone know? Open acces for readers and publishers alike….or just readers?
Because there are other ways to make the process of publishing an article an intimidating experience, charging you an arm and a leg for one.
The science is nonexistent.
I would like to hear Michael Asten’s views on the science of global warming – not just one sub-topic, but his main points. What actual data, as opposed to climate model output, or data overly massaged by a climate model, could he bring to the table? I am also interested to know what water vapor metric would he consider to be appropriate to judge the water vapor feedback response to CO2? Total column or specific humidity.
Another post covering these topics would be much appreciated.
I have a suggestion that may help to take some heat of the debate.
Most Warmists seem to take the view that not cooling as quickly as would otherwise be the case, is identical to warming, that is, a rise in temperature. The greenhouse effect is now explained as insulation.
My suggestion is this – program all spellcheckers to replace “global warming” with “global not cooling as quickly as would otherwise be the case”, and both sides should be happy.
Mind you, I’m not sure how effective calls to reduce atmospheric CO2 to avoid the calamitous future effects of global not cooling as quickly as would otherwise be the case would be.
Seeking billions of dollars to investigate the effects of global not cooling as quickly as would otherwise be the case doesn’t express the same desperation as the current term for not cooling as quickly as would otherwise be the case. And as for the science – well, climatology would be just as scientific as ever – just a little more truthful and transparent.
We could all get on with life, and spend our time worrying about whether our favourite soap opera character will really recover from their obscure brain tumour, and go on to find fame and fulfilment saving the environment and orchestrating world peace.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I’ve got an experiment for you Friar Flynn. Throw a blanket over both yourself and one of those little fan heaters. If it doesn’t warm – you can get out. If it does – stay there. Bye.
Robert I Ellison,
And I have a similarly irrelevant experiment for you. Throw a blanket over anything without an active internal source of heat – say a corpse, concrete block, cylinder of compressed CO2 – and measure the resultant rise in temperature. No surprise – there isn’t one. But Warmists continue to insist that due to the magic of one way energy transfer, not cooling as quickly as otherwise would be the case, is the same as warming or heating.
Sorry, once again your irrelevant and misleading analogies fail when examined.
I award the round to Mike Flynn. Robert I Ellison again fails to score.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I don’t do analogies Friar Flynn. The Earth is of course thermalised by SW radiation from the Sun and emits heat.
Think on it grasshooper. For God’s sake think on it.
Robert I Ellison,
I was unaware I gave an analogy. One of us is confused, and I know it isn’t me.
You wrote –
“The Earth is of course thermalised by SW radiation from the Sun and emits heat.
Think on it grasshooper. For God’s sake think on it.”
I presume that a grasshooper is the Warmist equivalent of a grasshopper, or maybe a secret Warmist term of denigration. If the latter, it doesn’t seem to be working that well. Like most Warmist redefinitions, really.
Your first statement is merely more meaningless, repetitive Warmist cant. If you are trying to say that the Sun warms the Earth – why not just say it? Why all the obfuscation about thermalising and SW radiation and the emission of heat? The Sun warms the Earth. There. Short, clear and concise.
I still award you no points. Keep trying.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Grasshopper is a very inattentive student of not so mysterious.
Clearly you reject the whole notion of most sunlight hitting the surface and warming it – the atmosphere warming as a result of quantum kinetic transitions after interactions of greenhouse gases with IR photons inhibiting cooling and the whole shebang warming – especially as a result of thermal inertia in the oceans – until a new conditional equilibrium is reached.
e.g. http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
I suppose that’s one grasshoppers opinion – a ludicrously insane one – but yours nonetheless to cherish and fondle. Your precious.
Life is too short for bad coffee
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
Robert I Ellison,
Are you still trying to avoid saying the obvious – that the Sun warms the Earth?
You wrote –
“Clearly you reject the whole notion of most sunlight hitting the surface and warming it – the atmosphere warming as a result of quantum kinetic transitions after interactions of greenhouse gases with IR photons inhibiting cooling and the whole shebang warming – especially as a result of thermal inertia in the oceans – until a new conditional equilibrium is reached.”
What part of this verbiage means that the Sun doesn’t warm the Earth?
Is this the new obfuscatory Warmist Manntra? Is this recognition that global not cooling as fast as would otherwise be expected is the replacement for global warming?
I rather prefer WebHubTelescope’s perception that global not cooling as fast as would otherwise be expected was actually due to the magical photonic properties of CO2, as evidenced by the existence of infrared CO2 lasers, and blast furnaces. In any field except climatology, raucous laughter would ensue. Yes indeedy, it’s fun, not boring!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Yes that’s it grasshopper – keep going.
The Sun warms the surface which then emits IR – which?
Oh – I forgot the pretentious sign off.
I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
Someone channel Carl Sagan for spiritual guidance and find out when Yellowstone is ‘gonna blow if we don’t stop fracking around.
If he wants to award prizes for genuine critiques of Dessler’s and Curry’s views, those are just not the people to be judging for it. They would obviously award the prize to the person most agreeing with their own viewpoint, probably a somewhat useless fawning critique. Perhaps an AGU board would be a better arbiter, but I suspect Mr. Aster would not part with his money with this stipulation.
The *FAN* is compensated for discourse. Truncation of such would be favorable and similar to changing the channel during an annoying commercial on TV.
Copy and paste extremist activism does not belong here, considering it is not genuine in the end.
The ‘skeptics’ have an amazing sense of entitlement – how dare you not publish my letter/rant/paper…… I’m going to cry all over the internet about how I’ve been repressed/oppressed/victimized.
Michael – Before you embarrass yourself further, why don’t you read the submission.
Heh Michael, an amazing sense of entitlement – that ‘skeptics’
papers not ever be published?
Michael,
You wrote –
“I’m going to cry all over the internet about how I’ve been repressed/oppressed/victimized.”
This sounds like something a Mann for all seasons might write, but I could be wrong.
Sorry about that.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Jim2,
I suggest you ponder the word “submission”.
The skeptics are “discussing” the issue. You seem to be the only one whining.
Dr. Curry, it might be time to start using some analytics on your blog.
Geological Society of Australia revised position on climate –
“Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years.
“Regardless of whether climate change is from natural or anthropogenic causes, or a combination of both, human societies would benefit from knowing what to expect in the future and to plan how best to respond.
“The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards, including climate change.”
Cue the appropriate Warmist accusations. Big Oil conspiracy? Geologists aren’t climatologists? Climate isn’t weather? Anyone who doesn’t agree with me should be burnt at the stake, and the skull carried around on a pointy stick?
I can’t wait!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Cue actual prudent preparation?
Naw – of course not.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/30/the-astonishing-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/#comment-582760
Here’s a link to get some text without going through paywall.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus/
I wouldn’t shoot the messenger here. Contrary to what many may think, the Murdoch press in Oz is less internally conformist than the others. Consequently it has quite a few climate botherers and finger waggers in its ranks. (Of course, there are also conservatives and skeptics for the Death Beast demographic, of which I form part.)
Of course, moso, the back story is that the GSA put out a strong warmist-alarmist, no doubts at all statement on behalf of the body, which it was forced to withdraw because of protests from a significant number of members. An attempt to produce a second statement failed because there was far from consensus among members. The latest statement is by way of acknowledging this division.
Ah, that great Herd of Independent Minds. They will do your independent thinking for you.
The sound of the climate war grinding to an impasse – with the odd angry shot fired across an inchoate no mans land from the entrenchments.
Sometimes I remember my old blue horse called Shibboleth and weep tears of blood and ash.
Our secret missions – my sword at my side and my trusty steed beneath. The sure footed climbs across the ranges to the Western Plains. The drum of hooves devouring the miles – fording swollen rivers – crossing burnt out landscapes. The battle of Frog Creek – which the frogs almost won. The din and fog of war.
The songs I sang to myself to pass the long and lonely days in the saddle.
Now the flames they followed joan of arc
As she came riding through the dark;
No moon to keep her armour bright,
No man to get her through this very smoky night.
She said, I’m tired of the war,
I want the kind of work I had before,
A wedding dress or something white
To wear upon my swollen appetite.
My conversations with Moso – the weed farmer.
Moso: Kind of quiet out there, GS
GS: Well, it gets quiet in Minnesota in January. People get thoughtful.
Moso: Nobody moving out there. Makes me nervous something bad is just about to happen.
GS: That’s why you didn’t want to camp under a tree?
Moso: That’s right. Cougars jump out of trees. Anvils fall out of trees.
GS: What anvils?
Moso: That’s the problem. You don’t know until it’s too late.
GS: Never heard of an anvil falling out of a tree.
Moso: You never heard of it because the people they fell on couldn’t pass on the word.
GS: What’s the anvil doing up in the tree?
Moso: Somebody put it there because that’s the last place you’d look.
GS: You are crazy. You know that?
Moso: Just telling you what I think.
GS: Loneliness has driven you over the brink into paranoia and insanity, pardner.
Moso: Ha! I’m a cowboy. Loneliness is what I crave. Insanity is what we eat for breakfast. No, sir, solitude is a gift, GS. We are cowboys. Lonesome is part of the iconic nature of the calling.
GS: Iconic?
Moso: That’s what I said.
GS: Is that like the Yukon?
(all rights reserved to Lives of the Cowboys)
Not shoot the messenger? Hell – send them all to Minnesota I say – and let God sort them out.
Ah, the sunset croak of a Cane Toad. This one sounds like it has Meninga-itis.
What, no consensus? Why, they sound just like…scientists!
Dr. Curry, it seems there is a safe haven in Australia for those in the industry who can still think straight. Who needs the AGU anyway?
Yes, Australia is a breeding ground for “advanced” thought. Just look at Flynn and Skippy …. groan.
Consensus or bizarre nonsense? Gina McCarthy, head of the US EPA says that cutting carbon emissions by a third by 2030 was about “protecting our health and protecting our homes” and will benefit children with asthma. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27663286 Absolute piffle. It’s not carbon, it’s CO2, there will be no health impact unless temperatures do rise and reduce cold-related ailments. Few if any homes are at danger from any further warming – there is no proven link with extreme weather events and sea-level rises remains modest.
So why is Obama doing this? Why does McCarthy make such outrageous statements? It’s impossible to think that this can only be about genuine fear of adverse climate change.
Maybe it’s not just the kiddies’ asthma. It does occur to me that Big Oil/Gas is coming out the winner in all this, over nukes and coal. The whirlygigs and solar panels have to be there as decor, of course, but it seems that oil and gas are what the punters are going to be getting, with help from the American leadership.
Well, who plays the energy game better and harder than a good ol’ oil baron, right?
There is always this: “The so-called climate benefits of the regulations are thus essentially nil, though I suppose one could gin some up via creative but implausible cost-benefit analyses….The non-carbon public health benefits of decreased reliance on dirty coal are the most compelling reasons for the regulations, and they are considerable.” http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-perspective-on-us-epa-carbon.html
When you have a bad reason to do something, why not use that rather than a more reasonable one?
Yes, Big Oil/Gas among others and PR, which can backfire.
‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs. Some of the world’s top economists have assessed the targets from the 11th session Open Working Group document into one of five categories, based on economic evidence: Phenomenal, Good, Fair, Poor and not enough knowledge.’ http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/final_un_ccc_2015.pdf
Wally Broecker –the ‘father of global warming’ – suggests that predictions about the future of climate are problematic. The science of stochastic nonlinear dynamical systems – and of abrupt climate change – suggests that he is correct. It creates a dilemma. The world may not be warming for decades at least – but this comes at the price of inherent instability of the climate system. The reduction of pressures on the system – CO2 from fossil fuels, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, land clearing, loss of soil carbon, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfide -which are compounded by population and development issues – is therefore prudent and this has implications for resource constraints and economic growth.
There is currently an opportunity to combine aid, environmental and climate factors into a coherent policy position for Australia. I suggest that this is best achieved through integration of the Copenhagen Consensus analysis of the UN proposed 2015 extension of the Millennium Development Goals. The aim is a policy position that can serve as a guide and focus for aid to achieve the biggest bang for the development buck and create progress at the same time on the environment and climate change.
In a relatively short order the world will require an abundance of low cost, low carbon energy. I would add another line item in the energy section – to propose a $1B triennial global energy prize to support innovation in energy technology, energy efficiency and energy systems – to be judged by a panel of eminent persons. It is to be contributed to by world governments, corporations and individuals. There is room also to expand on rebuilding organic matter in global agricultural soils.
I get the feeling that many imagine the world to be composed of sceptics and warmists. There is a whole world out there that is not either. And a whole world of opportunities. There is a September announcement for post 2015 MDG – and this really shouldn’t be left to progressives.
It’s time to capture the high ground of science – and that’s the real reason for their desperation at stochastic dynamical systems and abrupt climate change. Maybe they are just dumb. And the policy high ground.
But perhaps the game has become the thing – the odd angry snipe over no mans land is what it is all about.
I am a member of the AGU, and am currently a member of the Fellows Committee that selects Fellows for the Atmospheric Sciences Section. In the near term, I will remain a member of the AGU and I am highly supportive of Peter Webster’s efforts to work within the organization to effect change. But I am increasingly conflicted about my membership in the AGU.
I once joined a new [medical] organization set up by the Government to keep tabs on what it was doing and ended up the local chairman. Did not agree with the Government aims but did enjoy the meetings and companionship with fellow GP’s and the odd glass of wine.
Able to go to meetings around Australia and sit on a review of projects board.
The organization is now being disbanded by a new Government.
My advice would be to stay on board until they kick you off and keep pushing for honest dialogue.
You are much more able to get get the scientific approach you seek if you keep persisting.
Please stay on.
.
Institutions are like arteries, they harden over time.
‘Enlightenment O,’ oh, an’ let’s keep guvuh – mint lean
and mean ’cause they don’t know, anymore than any
one else and prob’ly less, ask kim, and the law should
be as non – invasive as possible but consistent and just
ter all and allowing cits ter plan for the future and go
about their own business w/out undue interference.
The law should not be master but the servant of the
people. tsk!… (Taken from the Serf Manifesto.)
Well said, BTS.
The AGU response might be a sign of the “seige mentality”. If an organization or scientist is constantly bombarded with letters and suggestions, at some point they will be unable to separate the good intentioned from the bad.
Intention only matters if you’re playing a social game of the kind that distracts from the subject matter.
IEA predicts more government control of energy and complains, Bart-like, about the “market signals” (read government regulation) being strong enough to move to low carbon sources.
From the article:
…
However, aging infrastructure and demands from climate-change policies will also increase the energy bills across the OECD group of developed economies.
“The investment path traced in the report falls well short of reaching climate stabilization goals, as today’s policies and market signals are not strong enough to switch investment to low-carbon sources and energy efficiency at the necessary scale and speed,” the report warned.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101725912
I don’t see the big deal. The AGU likely has a policy on gravity being settled science also. It probably reads something like “we are 95% certain the Earth’s standard acceleration due to gravity is 16 to 64 ft/sec^2 “
From Jo Nova:
…
So much for the consensus. In 2012 The Geological Society of Australia (GSA) was one of the few associations to make a slightly skeptical position on climate. For poking their heads above the parapet they’ve had years of headache and debate, and finally have issued a statement saying they have given up entirely on putting out any statement. The debate is so furious and divisive that no position could be agreed on. (I wonder exactly how many of their members are fans of climate models? Was this the work of just a few zealous believers?) I think I’ve hardly ever met a geologist who wasn’t somewhat skeptical.
The back story is that, like most science associations, in 2009 the GSA chanted the litany. (Their 2009 statement is here). They wrote that governments should take strong action to reduce CO2 and that meant paying geologists more to do research and sit on plum advisory committees. How predictable…
…
That’s when they discovered that their members were furious and did not agree. It caused an uproar. So they surveyed their members (if only all associations would do that) and reissued a statement in 2012 which was more skeptical. Now, after being badgered for another two years they have backed away from the whole debate. It is too divisive to even put forward a statement that does not pander entirely and 100% to the so-called consensus. Read below how tame and banal their 2012 statement was. They merely pointed out some feedbacks were not well understood. But no cracks in the faith are allowed!
This story shows firstly how meaningless statements from most science associations are. Argument from Authority always was, and still is, a fallacy of reasoning. A small committee of six can easily spout a position that many of their own members disagree with. Almost no associations go to the trouble of surveying their members. It also shows how aggressively faithful the believers are. Even a statement with mild truisms that does not profess complete obedience to the approved chant is not allowed.
…
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-science-hopelessly-politicized-geological-society-of-australia-gives-up-on-making-any-statement/
Fascinating Jim,
Have you considered the possibility that the 2009 statement was pretty tame too, but that some “members were furious” because “a statement… that does not profess complete obedience to the approved chant is not allowed.”
But yes, “It also shows how aggressively faithful the believers are”.
You are correct jim2, that such statements commonly reflect “stale, pale, and male” thinking.
The vigorous present-day realities of modern-day climate-change science are plainly evident:
• Earth’s energy imbalance persists without pause or evident limit, affirming that climate-change is real, serious, and cumulative.
• Among talented young scientists in particular, skepticism regarding the anthropogenic origins of climate-change is essentially nonexistent; the residual skepticism embraced by the ever-shrinking cadre of elderly and/or eccentric climate-change skeptics is nugatory because their ideas are sterile.
• Ideological climate-change denialism is doomed in the long run, and in the short run is propped-up solely by massive astro-turfing campaigns.
• The tropospheric temperature-pause is ending, depriving skeptics and denialists alike of a main talking point; this is accelerating the progressive scientific demise of skepticism, and accelerating too the political demise of denialism.
Conclusion AGU editors are not professionally obligated to support sterile skeptical science manifested as statistics-only single-author cycle-seeking analyses, nor are they obligated to respect doomed political ideologies advanced by special interests.
These climate-change realities are obvious to *EVERYONE* (young scientists especially), eh Climate Etc readers?
Faith now says things are going to move forward. Weather, you like it, or not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10873477/Europe-at-risk-of-blackouts-warns-IEA.html
Why are people so concerned about the “position” of the GSA on something outside their competence?
I’d be concerned about their position on land subsidence, earthquake risks, groundwater depletion, mineral reserves, etc. They don’t appear to have any position on these areas of real importance, but nobody seems concerned about that. Another example of where climate science is bringing down more than just itself?
More from Jo Nova’s article:
AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.
Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”
The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.
It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.
Jim,
Good link.
Even taking no position, knowing it’s predominately a political topic not based on hard empirical science standards is better than most of its global counterparts especially in the U.S.. Generally, the GSA deserves some comparative relational credit but still in a broader sense inadequate in reporting the zealot nature of politics infecting the advocacy of AGW.
The depth of the internal association politics, the culturization process of many NGO, professional and trade groups can’t be minimized. People spend decades trying to get to the key leadership, policy and authoritative committees. Many associations have declined in both participation and importance over time. Technology such as the internet and general social trends has reduced their importance and impact locally. The public facade aspect of these legacy social groups is simply a commodity to be fought for, hand to hand as they say. Then there is the schism itself of which AGW politics are only a sample. Be that as it may the propensity for spouting off as authority and to engage in partisan positioning has probably never been greater from leadership. Symptomatic of arrogance in leadership that often coincides with broader decline and certainly all this is seen in academia as well.
Trade and professional groups were once so internal, non-political (or very small topical) and obscure they never would have considered their politicization and advocacy status. They seldom thought the need to introduce checks and balances or protections of minority views. Associations just weren’t anticipating by their design large scale specialty controversies and issues like the climate wars.
When the climate war ramps up, for example this week based on the Obama administration trying to passing carbon taxes through a Federal agency bypassing the U.S. Constitution and Congress all of the smaller participants in the day to day climate debate are going to have to adjust to the new stakes involved. You can suddenly see how inadequate, cronyistic and corrupt many of the climate advocacy forces (many associations with tinpot leadership) are in the light of the new scaling of the debate. You suddenly realize how limited and inadequate much of the day to day rules of the debate have been as well, I’m thinking of course of the self-censoring and self-deprecating “skeptics” who try to limit or devoid “politics” and are comfortable with very limited discussion points (often nuanced and/or technical). This runs all through the associations as well. You hope there is the opportunity for many of these groups to reform and open themselves but given the nature of the cultures that dominate and gravitate toward leadership authority I would say it is doubtful. There will just be a continued, growing in fact, justified contempt for those seeking intellectual authority corrupted by partisan culture and predisposition. Climate is a glaring example of the fall. It also reflects the vast upward fluctuation of the scale of the climate conflict itself, associations simply can’t keep up and look trivial and foolish in their small time crony postures. Association are going through what mainstream media, government officials, politicians and academics have all experienced; deflation of value due in part to overexposure, poor quality and clear indications of social and political bias at every turn. Of course, in low information media and public circles the abuse and impact of the legacy reputations of the associations has been a significant plus in the green culture tactical handbook.
> Their 2009 statement is here
And here’s a letter about their later statement:
http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/TAG's/TAG%20167WEB.pdf
The letters can be found here:
http://gsa.org.au/publications/tag.html
***
Contrarians whine, even when they win.
Mikky,
Since the science debate isn’t substantial and dissent is endlessly dealing with nebulous media, government, academic claims of authority based on “consensus” what any organization might say can have a political impact. Advocacy is sustained in part by low information participants so exploitation of anything with “science” in the title or implied has been fair game for manipulation.
The GSA link is interesting in that 53% opposed the prior AGW shill statement and only 2% claim to have been consulted in its formation. Now some part of that 2% and the associated leadership are able to block or veto any corrective or even moderated AGW policy statement. Isn’t that so typical really? Even if most of the organization was “skeptical” it’s good luck trying to get that by what are likely AGW fanatics somewhere in the GSA machinery. Since skeptics aren’t uniform, lacking binding cause and culture their results turn out poorer but they are still years ahead of the top down dolt associations found in the U.S. like the AGU.
The issue also includes a balance sheet for the organization. You realize just how shoe stringed these groups are. My local Rotary Club has more assets saved then this association. Factor that out, with a justified piece of cynicism and you realize how easily the greased wheel of the AGW academic/government payola could easily buy off consensus statements from what I can only extrapolate as proportionally strapped association counter parts around the world. In fact, the larger associations are far more likely to demand funds to justify their existence and are even more susceptible to consensus funding and conformity culture. The AGU should likely attach a red light outside their climate committee office where ever that might be meeting. I don’t think money is the primary explanation, it’s ideology but the operating demands and pressures certainly exist beyond what member dues are covering.
“stale, pale, and male”
When you don’t have the science, you use racism and sexism?
must not be a fan of more diversity
“Fans of *MORE* Discourse” endorse the principle that “Silence is Never Golden“
`Cuz broadened discourse is good for democracies, harkin!
“stale, pale, and male”
Whoops, your mask slipped there Fanny. It’s fine to use that sort of language among the radical lefties who ‘know’ that racism can only ever exist in one direction, but you must have discussed at activist groups how the proletariat aren’t quite ready for that yet. Not in public! There’s a good boy.
Fan has all kinds of messages going out that give me the creeps. Although it’s hard to find any substance in his writing it’s full of all the right codes.
First, there’s the Radical Feminist line you quote. We are reminded Fan is speaking for women–that 1/2 of humanity should heed his words.
Then we get his usual call to “talented young scientists in particular.” This group is constantly being reminded by Fan that, in line with Cardinal Hensen’s decrees, “skepticism regarding the anthropogenic origins of climate-change is essentially nonexistent.” The more he repeats this line the more it comes off as a chilling threat, rather than an innocent observation. The message becomes clear, if not obvious: if you want a job in research or academia, you had better get in line. Once the old timers are gone there will be no room for CAGW doubt.
Today only the pope is missing from his message. But remember, kids, the fun starts with the “Ad Extirpanda.”
So has the AGU (an organization funded by Big Oil) been scared into being politically correct?
I.E. Are they “selling out” and only publishing pro CAGW papers to play nice with the current powers that be?
What makes you think, from a financial point only for a moment, that “big oil” wouldn’t want to side with AGW pseudoscience and the greenshirts?
Both make oil (carbon) more expensive and raise profit margins by creating artificial scarcity. That’s what OPEC does as well.
They’re aware at the upper zealot levels of the green movement they are dealing with communists who dream of plunder and destruction. They’re confident I’m sure they could scrape the Joshua’s and Fanboys and what they represent off their shoe in two seconds flat. This basic irony of the deluded greens enhancing “big carbon” profit comes as a shock to them each and every time. Consider the basic level of economic ignorance found in the leftist circle to begin with. AGW belief really is rooted in Keynesian orthodox of the very same tribe.
There are 7,700 geologists and geophysicists in Australia, 462 geologists and geophysicists in Victoria (6%), and the average gross weekly earnings AUD $1,6872. If you’re looking for a job as a geophysicist in Australia, Victoria is currently offering visa nomination for eligible geophysicists and graduate geophysicists.
http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/working-and-employment/occupations/geophysicist
Here’s a description of what geologists and geophysicists do:
http://joboutlook.gov.au/occupation.aspx?search=keyword&code=2344
Our emphasis.
Interestingly, we can see that the field is somewhat evenly divided between those who work in mining, and those who work in technical and scientific services.
http://joboutlook.gov.au/occupation.aspx?search=keyword&tab=stats&cluster=&code=2344&graph=IN
With such diversified tasks, it is of little wonder that the GSA has difficulty formulating a statement on climate change, if the concept make any scientific sense.
My learned colleagues are all of the opinion that the earth is flat, therefore I reject this paper that has the ridiculous claim that the earth might be spherical.
Craig Venter’s experiences with adverse NIH peer review speak to the contrary, isn’t that correct DocMartyn?
Notice in particular that Venter’s strategic response embodied FOMD’s principled advice for dealing with rejection, namely to to “recruit respected coauthors, rewrite carefully, and resubmit.”
Indeed Venter has implemented this strategy-of-collaboration so successfully that the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) nowadays achieves impressive levels of NIH collaboration and funding.
Perhaps that’s why Venter quotes Charles Darwin (at the start of Chapter 15)
Needless to say, a far less effective scientific strategy for Venter would have been uncooperative whinging, conspiracy theories, and appeals to ideology-first think-tanks and media-pundits.
Conclusion Science ain’t no tea-party, and rejection both just and unjust is an inescapable reality of scientific life. And yet, in the long run, respecting the collegial and collaborative norms of science *DOES* pay-off … *IFF* the starting science is strong enough to recruit strong collaborators, and broad enough to sustain an enduring research program, and visionary enough to inspire talented students.
*EVERYONE* understands *THAT*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Craig Venter persuaded private investors that they could make money by patenting human DNA sequences. Such patenting of natural DNA sequences would have massive consequences for research and for medicine. In the end the genome was sequenced by the US taxpayer and private industry, at huge cost. The thing is, if the original NIH plan had been followed the genome would have been sequenced, interesting bits first, at about 10% of the actual cost, but would have taken five years longer.
A year ago the Supreme Court delivered its, expected verdict, human genes cannot be patented.
So all Craig Venter backers lost their money and the NIH spent a fortune having to do the sequencing with huge manpower costs and off the shelf, rather than new generation, sequencers.
Doing science is like making love, you should not be in a race to finish as quickly as possible.
How many tissues have you regenerated Oh Great Medical Researcher and fraud.
In his personal bio not to be published but for the editors’ information, Michael Asten talks about letters he sent in many outlets. Among them The Age is being cited. The only one hit for “michael asten” in the Age’s database is this one:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/letters/why-mcgorry-deserves-award/2010/01/26/1264267993930.html?page=4
Since Asten states that he ” is a regular commentator on climate-change science with twenty OpEds and letters published in The Australian, The Age and various geoscience journals, since
2009″ and that Michael Ashley commented on 4 of them, that gives us 15 other to find.
***
Asten also mentions he “has published on climate sensitivity as
deduced from deep-ocean records of the Eocene period.” If we could have the publication list, that would be nice.
http://www.monash.edu/research/people/profiles/profile.html?sid=1645&pid=3001
Asten, M., 2012, Estimate of climate sensitivity from coral records in the vicinity of the eocene oligocene cooling, Proceedings of the 34th International Geological Congress 2012, 05 August 2012 to 10 August 2012, Australian Geoscience Council, Australia, p. 1551.
Coral proxy for the win.
Thanks, Reverend!
Here it is:
http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:118909
In Neil Williams and Ian Lambert. Proceedings of the 34th International Geological Congress 2012, Australian Geoscience Council, 2012.
From p. 1551 to 1551.
http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:118909
After thinking about it since yesterday, I think I understand this better. Here is my hypothesis about why this happens: Censorship needs to deny and conceal its own existence. Therefore, the thing that most needs to be censored is anything that can be construed as a challenge to censorship itself and those who practice it. Just as a totalitarian state may prohibit certain ideologies and groups, but the most important thing to suppress are attacks on the State itself.
I find myself mostly agreeing with Steven Mosher on this question … does happen sometimes, he’s nobody’s fool despite his often irritating and cryptic postings.
However, I’m not dissatisfied with the outcome. In particular, I love the irony of a “scientific” society unilaterally declaring the climate debate over, particularly at this point in history. The evidence for the CO2 hypothesis has never been strong, and enough time has elapsed for the alarmist predictions of millions of climate refugees and precipitous temperature increases and accelerating sea level rise to be proven false. And this is the time they declare the debate over??? Riiiight …
So from a purely political point of view, I’m quite happy that they’ve taken that ludicrously pompous tack, because the optics are horrible for them. It reveals how little the alarmists actually care about the science, which can only advance the cause of science itself.
However, as a tactical matter I’d agree with Mosher. If you want to get a large organization to do something, even if it is not particularly contentions, you need to be very bland, unthreatening, and reassuring in your proposal. Big organizations quickly forget their original purpose (see “Do No Evil” as a current example) and become focussed on survival.
And if an organization survived by doing “X” in the past, there will be few in management who will even consider rocking the boat. So if you want a new forum, a new direction, a new anything, you need to ask in a most suave and neutral manner, with lots of discussion of the advantages for the organization. Not the advantages for science. Not the advantages for grad students. You need to stress the advantages for the organization.
Note that Mosh’s point has nothing to do with climate science. It has nothing to do with science at all. It has to do with big organizations, and how to move them in the direction you’d like to see them move. As he points out, you don’t do it by butting heads with them. Quite the opposite.
Me, I usually take the other route, the gadfly route, but that’s just me. It’s a question of where I think my efforts will have the most leverage.
Regards to all,
w.
Willis Eschenbach: I find myself mostly agreeing with Steven Mosher on this question …
What I wonder is this: if we had read Prof Asten’s proposal before AGU turned him down, would it be clear to us that his language raised their hackles and guaranteed a rejection? Having read a lot of what I have read (e.g. Michael Mann’s editorials and tweets; Christopher Monckton’s essays), I think that the answer is that Prof Asten’s language would have seemed reasonable to us. Only with the AGU rejection, and the specific language of their rejection, does Mosher’s point seem clear. imo
good post, thank you
How does the AGU’s long term position as an organization benefit by supporting the position of probable cAGW? I can see short term benefits, but long term serious risks.
Organizations don’t make decisions. People do. Even when it appears the decision has been made by some “committee” or other group decision-making organ, the actual outcome is the result of a bunch of individual decisions by individual decision-makers, combined by some method whose design begins with the formal rules of the decision-making organ, as manipulated by the individual actions (and decisions leading to those actions) of those involved.
Most of those decision-makers are pursuing an agenda, composed of various items they feel would benefit themselves, others they care about, and various ideological and organizational goals. For many, the stated goals of the organization, or even its survival, take a back seat not only to their own personal advantage (including friends and traders), but abstract ideals having nothing to do with the actual organization they’re making decisions for. This is often called subversion.
If you want to persuade an organization to some action, you have to tailor your arguments to agendas of the decision-makers, which includes their own incentives to appear to have the organization’s best interests at heart, even when they don’t. OTOH, some actions, even when they’re arguably in the best interests of the organization involved (or the supposed ideals that organization is more-or-less dedicated to) will be impossible of persuasion because they’re too obviously contrary to either the personal, or the ideological aspects the decision-makers are actually pursuing.
“Organizations don’t make decisions. People do.”
On this point I completely agree. Individuals make both correct and incorrect decisions based on the available information.
“If you want to persuade an organization to some action, you have to tailor your arguments to agendas of the decision-makers, which includes their own incentives to appear to have the organization’s best interests at heart, even when they don’t.”
On this point I tend to disagree. It assumes that you can somehow trick the people making decisions to change their position. It seems better to establish metrics by which the relative validity of the decision will be measured and then push for a revision of the decision by those in charge as the available information justifies. Sometimes that requires a change in the leadership of organizations.
Since global CO2 emissions WILL continue to increase for several decades, the science will become much more clear on its impacts. Individuals who have made decisions (whether it is the leadership of the AGU or the US President) will be shown to have been right or wrong in their positions.
No. Most people tend to make decisions based on the issues they’re focusing on at the time, as filtered through the relevant agenda items. If a (potential) consequence of the decision isn’t on their radar at the time, they can easily miss the implications of that consequence WRT their agenda.
Most decision-makers depend to some respect on the appearance of supporting the goals and survival/prosperity of the organization they’re helping to make decisions for. (Thus, your “[s]ometimes that requires a change in the leadership of organizations.”) Demonstrating how making a particular choice can enhance, or damage, that appearance can provide incentives WRT the decision they make.
But this is most likely when the decision doesn’t really have any other strong implications WRT their agenda. The whole point of my “some actions […] will be impossible of persuasion because they’re too obviously contrary […]” is that you usually can’t “trick the people making decisions to change their position.”
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog and commented:
Anatomy of a rejection, courtesy of peer-review!
“There is an extensive body of scientific literature that supports the view highlighted in AGU’s position statement that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last fifty years.”
This notion was 100% derived from computer models that now have “an extensive body of scientific literature” telling us they underestimated natures contribution. Hence there are no scientific underpinnings for such a statement. It is just self-reinforcing dogma!
http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/04/video-gop-climate-change-deniers/
The propaganda now explodes, Dr. Curry will make benign observations as the “science” community is largely supportive of the statist administration. It’s a disgrace.
Warmers aren’t worried that the science is junk, they have a goal. Skeptics remain politically obtuse as a group, moments like the EPA power grab highlight this fact.
Is there any empirical scientific evidence in any peer reviewed journal anywhere which supports the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are or will cause runaway catastrophic global warming?
core values … but to what end? What is the purpose of the AGU?
Quoting from just above their core values:
“to promote discovery” — science
“for the benefit of humanity” — but not just any earth or space science.
The phrase leaves room for several interpretations and a few noble causes.
I’m glad this historically profound statement is being published here. The way they prove that recent climate variation is unnatural couples with this vastly unscientific outlook:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
I’d take ad in Eos if I were Asten
Pretending professional societies are acting in good faith is beginning to wear a bit thin, huh, Judith?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?