by Judith Curry
. . . some scientists are mixing up their role with that of a climate activist. – Lennart Bengtsson
Professor Bengtsson’s persecution shows precisely why independent think-tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation are essential. Truly, the old joke is becoming ever more true: what’s the opposite of diversity? University. – Matt Ridley
At Climate Etc., I have had numerous posts on the issue of scientists engaging in advocacy:
The real issues for scientists engaging in public policy debates (whether or not they are advocates) are even more complex than the simple choice to advocate or not. Some recent comments illustrating the conundrums facing climate scientist who engage with the policy process and politics:
Bengtsson tells the Mail: “Some people like my views, other people don’t, that is the way when it comes to science.” That’s precisely the point. Science is a methodical process of open inquiry. Those who enforce orthodoxies and engage in name-calling aren’t doing science, even if they’re scientists.
Steve McIntyre: Begtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate “community”.
Johanna Haigh: “Whatever anyone’s views are on the role, motivation and integrity of the GWPF in this matter, it is up to individual academics whether or not to associate themselves with it.
“It is regrettable that perceived political stances on the climate issue are apparently so affecting academic activity. The Grantham Institute at Imperial has always opposed such behaviour, believing that scientific progress requires an open society. We try to engage with a wide range of figures, some with radically different views on climate change.”
“The outcome in this case is probably a reflection of the ‘us and them’ that has permeated the climate science debate for decades and which is in part an outcome of – and reaction to – external pressure on the climate community.
Tweets from Tamsin Edwards @flimsin:
I understand why some think disagreement makes science look less reliable, but I believe masking it makes it look worse.
I disagree with people being judged by who they talk to, rather than by what they say. For those asking me I can say some general thoughts: I think it’s better if sceptical organisations have access to mainstream scientists
Tweet from Ryan N. Maue
So senior scientists want to be involved in climate politics but not get dirty in the process?
Climate McCarthyism?
In his resignation letter, Bengtsson stated: It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. Is what is happening to Bengtsson ‘McCarthyism’? Well, there are insufficient details to tell exactly what kind of intimidating emails Bengtsson has been receiving. An article in the National Review entitled Science As McCarthyism has some interesting comments on this issue:
Especially significant was a tweet from Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute, who for many years worked alongside James Hansen. “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”
Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.
Climate McCarthyism has been described in a post by the Breakthrough Institute entitled Climate McCarthyism Part I: Joe Romm’s intimidation campaign. I have been ‘McCarthy-ed’ by Joe Romm, having been frequently referred to as ‘the most debunked climate scientist on the planet’, ‘anti-science’, etc. For a recent example, recall the treatment of Roger Pielke Jr’s 538 article.
So what is the impact on a scientist of the so-called climate McCarthyism? As a result of smearings by Romm, Mann, et al., I am excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, a number of people won’t collaborate with me, and anyone who wants to invite me to be a keynote speaker has to justify this in light of all the cr*p that shows up if you google ‘Judith Curry’. Does any of this really ‘matter’? I’ve convinced myself that it doesn’t (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.
Joe Romm engaging in such practices is reprehensible, but it is an issue of much greater concern when other scientists do it (notably Michael Mann). Bengtsson’s concern was raised over his treatment and the reactions by his so-called ‘colleagues.’ Having dirt thrown at a scientist as part of the political process is one thing; when their own colleagues start throwing the dirt, then this becomes a frightening situation for science.
Is it appropriate to call this ‘McCarthyism’? I don’t know, and that’s not really the point. The key concern is attempts stifle open scientific inquiry and policy debates on the topic of climate change. Bishop Hill perhaps more aptly describes this as ‘The bigotry of the consensus.’
Scientist engagement with think tanks and advocacy groups
It is is somehow perfectly acceptable to involve green advocates (including those employed by green advocacy groups such as Greenpeace) as authors on the IPCC reports (Donna LaFramboise has discussed this). But holy hell breaks loose when a scientist like Bengtsson takes an unpaid position on the advisory board of think tank that is not ‘green.’
Whether or not a scientist is an advocate, they may choose to become involved with think tanks and/or advocacy groups. From the Wikipedia:
A think tank (or policy institute, research institute, etc.) is an organization that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture. Most policy institutes are non-profit organizations, which some countries such as the United States and Canada provide with tax exempt status. Other think tanks are funded by governments, advocacy groups, or businesses, or derive revenue from consulting or research work related to their projects.
If you look at the Wikipedia list, groups like Cato, Heartland, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Research Institute are included on the Think Tank list, whereas Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, National Resources Defense Council are not included. The latter group are referred to as advocacy groups. Some think tanks play an advocacy role; the key issue is whether they actually lobby (in which case they lose their tax exempt status).
All of these arcane details are of relevance to discussion about the GWPF, which is a think tank (as per UK list) with tax exempt status. Bob Ward is claiming that GWPF is lobbying (I do not think that it is) and therefore should not have tax exempt status; apparently the GWPF is now undergoing a change to remove the tax exempt status to avoid this particular criticism.
Back to Gavin Schmidt’s ‘groups perceived to be acting in bad faith.’ Apparently advocacy groups acting according to the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology are acting in ‘good faith’, whereas the think tank GWPF is acting in ‘bad faith’ since it questions the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology.
The irony of the situation is this. I do not regard Bengtsson as an activist or an advocate; rather he is a scientist that wishes to engage in the policy discussions and debates surrounding climate change. Gavin Schmidt is a self-declared advocate (who does not apparently have any direct affiliation with any think tanks or advocacy groups).
So, should a scientist engage with think tanks or advocacy groups? If so, what are the pitfalls? In my early days of trying to navigate this, circa 2005, I participated in several events organized by green advocacy groups. I scrupulously avoided taking any funds (for travel, honorarium, etc). Even so, this triggered the accusation by Roger Pielke Jr that I was a ‘stealth advocate’, or was being ‘used’ by green advocacy groups. Since then, I’ve avoided any formal contact with think tanks or advocacy groups, although at one point I visited Fred Smith at the Competitive Enterprise Institute while I was in DC to follow up on an extensive email exchange.
I am starting to rethink this, since I think that think tanks have the potential for stimulating interdisciplinary discussions on the major policy issues, that are difficult to undertake in an academic or university environment. So I may start to engage a little bit more with think tanks. The next issue is then whether to accept funding from a think tank (for travel, service on a report, consulting, etc). I am currently in a position where I don’t need the funds, but that position might change soon. The green witch hunt to identify any hint of indirect funding from an energy company or the Koch brothers makes this a tricky issue to navigate.
There is a high degree of hypocrisy here, whereby employees of green advocacy groups can participate as authors of the IPCC reports (without apparent criticism), but a non-advocate scientist cannot participate in a (non-green) think tank without censure from scientist colleagues. Scientists should be judged for the arguments and the integrity of their behavior, and should not be censured over who they choose to talk to. Wider participation of climate scientists in substantive debates regarding climate policy is a good thing. Honest brokers are to be preferred over advocates; but the real problem arises when advocates seek to stifle scientific and policy debates.
Judith –
Compare Stevie Mac’s reference to “cleansing” (I thought that “skeptics” abhor holocaust references) to what Bengtsson has to say:
Fascinating. Read Bengtsson’s remark – particularly “:…or that academics’ work is being ‘deliberately suppressed…” and then go back and read through the previous thread of comments, chock full of “skeptics” who are quite convinced of a “systematic ‘cover up’ and deliberate suppression. ‘
What explains the contrast, Judith?
“What explains the contrast, Judith?”
unicorns.
you have not been invited to ask questions. go away.
Be more specific about ‘the contrast”
So, I take it you have no explanation, eh steven? Same ol. same ol.
–> ” you have not been invited to ask questions. go away.”
11!!!11!!! INTOLERANCE. MCCARTHYISM. REIGN OF TERROR. LYSENKO, LYSENKO, LYSENKO 1111!111!
Joshua
‘So, I take it you have no explanation, eh steven? Same ol. same ol.”
explanation of what?
First you have to be specific.
McIntyre uses the word cleansing.
“Recently, Lennart Bengtsson undertook a positive dialogue with climate skeptics by joining the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an organization that attempts to represent rational skepticism.
Instead of welcoming this initiative, the climate “community” has now cleansed Lennart Bengtsson by pressuring him to resign from the GWPF advisory board. ”
Cleansing, if we take it to be a metaphor would not make much sense.
Always assume writers make sense until you ask them to clarify.
Ethnic Cleansing refers to removing undesireable from a geographic
area. Bengtsson was not cleansed in this manner. He was, apparently,
threatened with banishment, so he quit the GWPF. Cleansing here would
refer then to getting him to clean up his act. Either that or mcintyre misused
a metaphor. When your reading requires a figurative interpretation
and that figurative interpretation makes no sense, then you need more data.
Next
““I do not believe there is any systematic ‘cover-up’ of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being ‘deliberately suppressed’, as the Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact. I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence.”
Note, even if we read Mcintyre figuratively there is NO CONTRAST bewteen these views.
mcintyre: Bengtsson was cleansed.
Bengtsson: there was no cover up, no effort to suppress views.
mcintyre discusses the social behavior
Bengtsson discusses the treatment of scientific work.
In short, the views are consistent and not in contrast.
Finally, As for other commenters.
like I SAID you need to be specific. which commenters, which comments.
As for explanations: the “contrast” you see is what you choose to see.
If you can point to some examples, then we can reason together.
In the end I fully expect SOME readers ( like you) to make interpretational errors of what has been written by Bengtsson. The reason is simple.
language is ambiguous. the meaning of a sign is the response to the sign
The readers reaction tells you more about the reader than it does about the text. This situation is no different than any other interpretational situation.
Re “cleansing” as analogous to “denier,” –the Holocaust reference of choice for those of your ilk. You made the same accusation at ClimateAudit and I responded this way:
Steve’s choice of the word “cleansing” is directly related to his use of the word “fatwa,” which is a ruling or opinion on religious law issued by a mufti in response to an inquiry by those who wish to maintain the their purity within Islam. In other words, it has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing or the Holocaust.
Cleansing is clearly a reference to ethnic cleansing.
Quite amusing steven –
Here, try again. I’ll repeat since you seem to have had some trouble.
Here’s the first part:
But I do admire your loyalty, steven. I really do.
Lolwot, “those nasty Scandis” is a running Internet joke because it’s absurd, like everyone hating the Welsh. Get back in touch with reality.
This is a beaut:
In the end I fully expect SOME readers ( like you) to make interpretational errors …
Watch out, Chief of unintentional irony – it looks like someone else is vying for your throne.
“Cleansing is clearly a reference to ethnic cleansing.” – lolwot
Or washing his feet.
pottereaton —
“holocaust” is missing from “climate change denier” just as “ethnic” is missing from Steve’s use of “cleansing” w/r/t the Bengtsson situation.
Just as “denier” can be interpreted as a holocaust reference because of the ambiguity, so can “cleansing” be considered a holocaust reference.
My point is that if a person is inclined to seize on the ambiguity related to “denier,” then they should be consistent and not throw about “cleansing” in a cavalier manner.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal if Steve wants to use turns of phrases that can easily be interpreted as holocaust references. I don’t think that people should be so sensitive. But when “skeptics” use “cleansing” in the manner that Steve did in the Bengtsson situation, then it makes it appear to me that their ‘concern” about the term denier is not genuine. If it were genuine, then out of principle they would make it a point to not use a term like “cleansing’ in the manner that Steve did. What matters more to me is when people exploit important issues like the holocaust to score cheap points in the climate wars.
These threads – with one level of indent – are impossibly and ridiculously long.
We expect people like Joshua to act in bad faith.
They have such certainty in the inherent moral rectitude and intellectual soundness of their cause that this overrides any ethical or moral consideration that constrains normal people.
I feel reluctant to continue this, but a point that is missed is that Bengtsson has presumably been rescued by his cleansing. It is Bengtsson that has been cleaned.
This is distinct from either the GWPF or the consensus being cleaned of his taint by his elimination – this is the WW2 use of the term. The population is cleaned by the casting out of impure gene stock.
The elimination of Bengtsson rather than his rescue would have been more in the grand christian tradition of killing the infidel on the rationalisation they were better off dead rather than continuing to live in sin. However I should note that even on the this interpretation the WW2 link is not far away, the crusades having been referred to as the 1st holocaust.
Perhaps then better to get back to the real matter in hand, and not allow ourselves to be diverted.
Joshua: \\ “holocaust” is missing from “climate change denier” just as “ethnic” is missing from Steve’s use of “cleansing” w/r/t the Bengtsson situation.//
“Holocaust” is missing from “climate change denier” because it wouldn’t make sense if it was in there. But it’s always been implied that the two were similar. When the phrase was first used it was repeatedly stated that “these people are like Holocaust deniers.” That was the origin of the phrase. It was a deliberate attempt to equate the two types of people, even though they have nothing in common. Holocaust denial has nothing to do with skepticism since there are FACTS that prove it took place. There are no facts that prove we will be experiencing catastrophic climate change from a doubling of CO2. It’s a debatable assertion that is still a hypothesis.
Steve was not referring to ethnic cleansing because it wouldn’t make sense if he was. The cleansing refers to the cleansing of Bengtsson’s climate sacrilege. He sinned against the almighty power of the climate science “consensus” and had to be cleansed.
You really are out of your league in these discussions.
Well – this is getting caught in the spam filter, so I’ll have to break it up into multiple comments (much to the enjoyment of my many fans).
Part I
pottereaton –
I fear that you are failing fundamental tests of skeptical scrutiny.
You are arguing by assertion.
Just as you might claim that the use of denier is intended to reference holocaust denial, I might claim that the use of cleansing is intended to reference ethnic cleansing.
There is no objective analysis in your argument. Nothing substantiated with evidence. Steve might say that he was not referencing ethnic cleansing just as a realist might say that they aren’t referencing holocaust denial when they call someone a denier. in fact, in discussions with me I have had realists make that argument a number of times – that their use of denier was merely meant to imply someone who is denying something.
Part II:
The problem with their argument, IMO, is the same as yours. They tell me that when “skeptics” say that the term “denier” is a holocaust reference, the “skeptics” are incorrect (often accompanied by a dictionary definition).
Part III:
In fact, however, language is not so prescriptive. Language makes sense in the mind of the interpreter, not as some abstracted, rule-bound prescr*ption.
Ah – I found the offending word: prescr*ption. Now I can post the rest:
——
I don’t use the term “denier,” even though I think that it has been exploited by “skeptics” with faux “concern” about a holocaust reference. I don’t use the term because while I have my opinion, I can’t know whether or not a “skeptic” truly feels that they are being equated to a holocaust denier. So it’s easier to just not use the term, IMO. There is no interpretation that can be described by the speaker (except if maybe along with the term they provide a precise definition of their intended meaning).
In fact, I have a responsibility, if my intent is good faith dialog, to not use the term.
The same applies to “skeptics” who might thrown around “cleansing.” There’s a rather infamous incident when Santer as accused of “cleansing” (I believe it was “scientific cleansing”) and he and/or others responded that they were offended because they interpreted that to be a holocaust reference (and Santer has family that were directly affected by the holocaust). Any “skeptic” that is familiar with that incident, and who persists in using the term “cleansing” as a critical characterization in the climate wars, is demonstrating that their position vis a vis “denier” (assuming they have one, as I don’t doubt that Steve has), is showing that they are willing to exploit a serious issue like holocaust denial for political expediency.
It’s a very human characteristic to have double standards. We all do it. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. It’s human nature. Shame for your nature is inherently pointless because it doesn’t lead to change. But when the use of double standards is pointed out, it is an opportunity to grow. So why, instead of defending Steve’s use of a term that undermines his credibility, and contradicts his stated principles (at least I believe he has weight in on the
(Orwell) “We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instance of death we cannot permit any deviation . . . we make the brain perfect before we blow it out.”
The idea that people don’t want to be associated with the GWPF is somehow cleansing, and that they ought be punished for refusing ties to that organization is a form of enforced compliance.
If you can be forced to align with the GWPF today, who will you be required to embrace tomorrow?
Straw man. You are free not to associate with them. You are not free to force others not to associate with them.
Prof Bengtsson has issued a statement now – which has been added at the Science and Media centre
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.
“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.
“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.” -Lennart Bengtsson
————————————————————————————-
There are a number of other earlier reactions at the SMC, I think Mike Hulme gets the real story (my bold)
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/
———————————————————————————————
Prof Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture at King’s College London, said:
“The publishers of the journal concerned, IOP, express astonishment that the story of this rejected manuscript made front-page news. Of course it’s perfectly normal for scientific papers to be rejected for a whole variety of good reasons. But the reason it made front-page news in this case was because of the previous pressure brought to bear on Professor Bengtsson, from a variety of quarters including from other climate scientists, which made him resign his position as an academic advisor to the GWPF think-tank.
This is the real story here: why certain climate scientists believe it’s their role to pass public judgement on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or a campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’.
“This episode tells us a lot about how deeply politicised climate science has become, but how some scientists remain blind to their own biases.” Mike Hulme
bold didn’t work: this bit
“This is the real story here: why certain climate scientists believe it’s their role to pass public judgement on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or a campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’. ” – Mike Hulme
Judith,
Thanks again for your integrity and scientific accomplishments. One can never prove the negative of being bypassed or excluded but can sense to environment. On the positive side, since your Discovery article and Sci American profile you have established yourself as a leader in Scientific integrity. Nature bats last as many say and in the long term the carefull evaluation of observations and correction of models will demonstrate the reality of natural variation vs anthropogenic increases. With a 20 year hiatus and potential cooling the world will see what nature demonstrates. Is the heat hidding in the deep oceans to come back in 1,000 years or are changes in clouds and winds absorbing what may be a factor in energy exchanges?
Best wishes and thanks for your accomplishments and integrity.
Scott
“….thanks for your accomplishments and integrity.”
Indeed. And each passing year she deserves more thanks from more people. This is an issue that will be fully appreciated only in distant hindsight.
Curry
Re: “Scientists should be judged for the arguments and the integrity of their behavior, and should not be censured over who they choose to talk to.”
That is the essence of the scientific integrity not rhetorical logical fallacy.
“Does any of this really ‘matter’? I’ve convinced myself that it doesn’t (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.”
Kudos to Curry for acting on conscience with integrity.
“the real problem arises when advocates seek to stifle scientific and policy debates.”
That is the epitome of evil fascist Lysenkoism and McCarthyism now manifest among climate advocates.
Compare and contrast.
Judith: “We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists…”
Bengtsson: “Academic freedom is a central aspect of life at the University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
McCarthy rises again, eh Judith?
Joshua
Prof bengtsson confirmed there was a serious reaction from scientists OUTSIDE the UK.
The university of reading is in the UK. Interestingly, I attended a climate conference at Exeter University yesterday evening. The British scientists were perfectly civil and pleasant with me and especially interested in my comments on natural variability There was certainly an edge to comments made to me by several scientists from outside the UK.
I don’t claim this to be a scientific analysis but having had perfectly pleasant discussions in the past with the Met office perhaps there is more academic freedom over here? However, that certainly does not apply to some of the more extreme non avademic organisations who allow little dissent to be shown as exemplified by such as Bob ward?
Tonyb
Tony –
I am contrasting the widespread global characterizations universally applied, such as the ones we saw in the previous thread, with Bengtsson’s statement of the environment in which he works. I’m all for distinguishing where intolerance exists and where it doesn’t exist. But when terms such as “climate McCarthyism” and “reign of terror,” are thrown around , and in particular w/o even an attempt to understand what treatment Bengtsson actually was subjected to, then there is a multi-faceted problem, and it isn’t simply a problem of intolerance of dissent from the “climate science community.”
It is irresponsible to treat this as a unilateral dynamic, as a one-sided problem, IMO.
Tony –
Consider this comment from Bengtsson:
What does that suggest to you about the consistency in Bengtsson’s attitude towards dissent? Is that someone that should be the a representative for some battle against intolerance and the destructiveness of activism among climate scientists?
Tony
‘Prof bengtsson confirmed there was a serious reaction from scientists OUTSIDE the UK.”
like you I have found that the reaction of UK scientists is much more measured and open than US types.
Joshua would not know since he has no experience and his chief interest is in misreading texts
Joshua
I abhor witch hunts whether made by sceptics on warmists or warmists on sceptics. We have an unusual situation whereby the climate community has turned on its own when they step out of line.
Scientists should be sceptical. That they are persecuted when they are, seems to me to be a sorry state of affairs.
We certainly have our fair share over here of unpleasant green activists ( and no doubt unpleasant sceptics) but perhaps, and I only say perhaps, we have more open minded ness in our scientific community, and more specifically our climate science community
This is perhaps because we have access to many hundreds of years of climate records and that evidence of a warmer past can be readily seen. The university of Exeter and the met office for example are within ten miles of upland dartmoor where evidence can be seen to this day. I have offered to take a coach load of met office scientists on a magical mystery tour of the climate sights of dartmoor but I had no takers…
Tonyb
“We have an unusual situation whereby the climate community has turned on its own when they step out of line.”
There is nothing unusual about progressives attacking those who leave the tribe. It is not unique to climate science, not unique to science, not unique to any aspect of public policy.
Everybody keeps being surprised at the tactics used in the climate debate. Y’all need to get out more.
tony –
–> “I abhor witch hunts …We have an unusual situation whereby the climate community has turned on its own when they step out of line.”
What I see is people expressing their opinions, on both sides of the debate. That is as it should be.
I also see drama-queening of magnificent proportions, from people intent on self-victimization. That’s what leads to people seeing a “reign of terror” and “McCarthyism” when someone works in an environment where theyt have academic freedom and the ability to put forth arguments and opinions w/o prejudice.
Judith criticizes, quite regularly and quite vehemently, those who advocate for policies she disagrees with. Of course that’s her right. More power to her. May she be invited to advocate in future Congressional testimony as she has in the past. And others have the same right as she, to express their opinions and to be critical of those who hold differing opinions.
But there is a problem, IMO, when people employ important principles such as academic freedom, freedom of speech, and important phenomena such as McCarthyism and Lysenkoism for scoring cheap points in tribal battles. It trivializes those importance considerations, IMO.
What I don’t see is “witch hunts.” Of course, you are only using an analogy – but imprudent use of analogies fuels the kind of vast overreach as that we saw in the thread immediately downstairs. Why use such analogies, if time after time they are associated with claims such as “reign of terror?” This is all easily predictable.
Is there a degree of intolerance of difference in view on both sides of the debate? Of course. Such is human nature. That’s what happens when people become so identified with controversies. It’s like any politically-oriented issue that polarizes society. But I don’t think you can effectively fight intolerance with hyperbole and overly-dramatic rhetoric. Do you?
Joshua
I think you have been reading Rabbett Run again. Could you please provide the full extended quote from bengtsson you cite, plus the context?
Backtracking superficially only, it seems to come from the friend of someone who the guy seems to have insulted once. Surely you are not Going to sift through the entire life of Bengtsson in order to find grains of comments he made, that might have upset someone at one time and that some believe can be used to dismantle his reputation?
Let’s return to the real world situation whereby the members of a tribe have turned on their own. It’s pretty unpleasant , as is the name calling and unscientific hatred that characterise some of those on both ‘sides’ who really ought to grow up.
Tonyb
tony –
–> “Surely you are not Going to sift through the entire life of Bengtsson in order to find grains of comments he made, that might have upset someone at one time and that some believe can be used to dismantle his reputation?”
But my whole point is that a scientist having strong opinions should not be used to dismantle someone’s reputation. I don’t hold it against Bengtsson that he has opinions. I hold it against “skeptics” who drama queen about opinion-holding only among those that they disagree with.
Why would Bengtsson holding opinions dismantle his reputation? Because he’s a scientist? Scientists are people too!
My point is that we all express intolerance, but pedestrian opinion-holding should not be compared to “witch hunts” and “McCarthyism” and “reigns of terror,”
I am not defending tribalism or intolerance from either side. I am pointing out that selective attitudes about intolerance and tribalism are just more of the problem
All I know about the provenance of the quote is that it comes from Rabbet’s warren:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/laffaire-bengtsson.html
–> “Let’s return to the real world situation whereby the members of a tribe have turned on their own. It’s pretty unpleasant , as is the name calling and unscientific hatred that characterise some of those on both ‘sides’ who really ought to grow up.”
I agree. But I think that your criticism applies on both sides of the debate, and I think that conflating “name-calling and unscientific hatred” (that is ubiquitous on both sides) should not be conflated with “McCarthyism” or “Lysenkoism” or a “reign of terror.” Such flippant, hyperbolic, inaccurate, drama-queening is part of the problem. (It also occurs on both sides),.
Joshua
You’ll pardon me for ducking out of getting into an interminable discussion deconstructing every word of my comments as its time for Big Bang. How do you think i know so much about science and the foibles of scientists?
In the meantime , Please go and find the actual quote and context of the stuff you cited from Rabbett run.
Tonyb
GaryM nails it. This is standard stuff. it’s all about the politics.
Global warming is all politics all the time. Heck, just read the climategate emails. Alarmists are lefties. Bengtsson got the typical lefty treatment accorded to anyone who might do or say anything that could be a problem for lefty politics. Look at the Kochs, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Monica Lewinsky or any innocent citizen unfortunate enough to file with the IRS and fall afoul of the lefty harassment gestapo. Joe the plumber was in his yard minding his own business when Obama shows up politicking and someone sticks a mike in his face. He gives his opinion, it hurts Obama and lefties in the Ohio bureaucracy immediately start searching through govt files for dirt with which to slime him. The heck with privacy laws. Joe hurt Obama by giving his opinion when asked. He must be destroyed!
That’s why Obama and friends are constantly engaging in slander and character assassination. “Racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist.” Disagree with the left and you are a “hate-filled, mean-spirited, bitter clinger” who wants to deny people health care, kill seniors, starve kids, rape the environment, yada, yada, yada.
The slanders in DC are simply part of the same standard game plan. Same stuff that we see in global warming alarmism. Same tactics, same politics, same activists, for the same reason — anyone who can hurt the left must be destroyed. Period.
Tony, you wrote: “… but perhaps, and I only say perhaps, we have more open minded ness in our scientific community, and more specifically our climate science community. This is perhaps because we have access to many hundreds of years of climate records …”
I think in fact that open-mindedness and being prepared to hear the other fellow’s view is endemic in Britain, part of the British nature and community standards. I would suggest that this is the more the case than in most other countries (I’m widely-travelled).
Josh,
what is it with your penchant for making stuff up?
Judith Curry “vehemently” criticizes. Only in your world.
Honesty Josh. Try it sometime.
Faustino and Tony
I wanted to pick up on your point about there
being more civil discourse in the UK. Before you made those comments I was wondering if we in the US were guilty of coarse behavior beyond that found in other countries. I guess Faustino believes that. I can’t make comparisons but this gotcha culture is endemic here and I don’t see how any other
nation could be worse.
OK tim – if you don’t like vehemently, how about criticizes passionately, forcefully, spiritedly, vigorously, or emphatically? Let me know if any of those would qualify as “honest” and I’ll substitute.
Josh plays another semantics card.
Joshua,
You have a double standard. You wrote extensively on posts about how silly and thin skinned the skeptics were when they were called deniers. You told Judy over and over again to put her ‘big boy’ pants on. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
‘When terms such as climate McCarthyism are throw around’
‘I see drama queening of magnificent proporttion from people intent on self victimization’
‘But pedestrian opinion holding should not be compared to ‘witch hunts’ and ”McCarthyism’ and ‘reign of terror’
Yadda yadda yadda
Time to put your big boy pants on eh Joshua?
> You told Judy over and over again to put her ‘big boy’ pants on.
I think it was because Judy used that expression first, e.g.:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/06/a-subterranean-war-on-science/
A double standard would be not to say the same to Lennart.
ordvic –
Fair enough.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that I took personal offense at the comparisons of the Bengtsson situation to McCarthyism, “reigns of terror,” and worse. Probably it is because I have had close personal contact with people where were vicitmized by McCarthyism.
So I thank you for pointing out that I took this blogospheric nonsense too seriously.
So let me put on my big boy pants and refocus on ridiculing the over-reach and drama-queening that leads people to think that what happened to Bengtsson is comparable to McCarthyism and worse – without taking personal offense, and with concentrating more closely on how all the drama-queening reflects on why many “skeptics” are staining the name of skepticism.
But please note, I can indeed be wearing by big boy pants and still point out the double standards and inconsistencies and drama-queening from “skeptics” that fill up these threads.
> You told Judy over and over again to put her ‘big boy’ pants on.
I think it was because Judy used that expression first, e.g.:
“Oh my. As Lucia would say, please put on your big boy pants.”
Willard, obviously Judy did not use the expression first.
Josh,
I understand what your saying and how you might feel about that. If one just loosely usees the word McCarthyism it simply means your targeted for your views. That is what Bengtsson seems to think. If your sensitive to meaning though how do you know your not talking to a Jewish skeptic who might take more personal offense to the word denier than you do with your knowing a victim of old Joe. There is also the comparison of McCarthyism to the Holocaust; which do you think was worse?
Willard,
sorry I’m not following you on either point.
Ordvic –
==> ” If your sensitive to meaning though how do you know your not talking to a Jewish skeptic who might take more personal offense to the word denier than you do with your knowing a victim of old Joe. ”
I don’t. That’s why I don’t use the term denier. However, I do think that many times “skeptics” exploit the putative holocaust connotation. But I could never know unless I knew the person. So I don’t use the term. And that’s why I tell “realists” why I don’t think that they should use the term. It just isn’t necessary, just as the over-the-top references to McCarthyism or Lysenkoism et al. are completely unnecessary. If someone is really interested in promoting good faith exchange, they should avoid the use of such hyperbolic rhetoric, IMO. When someone trots out that rhetoric, it is a “tell” for a tribalistic influence. Those terms aren’t justified by a skeptical assessment of what is really going on, IMO.
Josh,
I agree with yoy there. Tthe name calling really diminishes the debate as well as th science.
> Willard, obviously Judy did not use the expression first.
Well, Lucia sure did use the expression before Judy did, if that’s what you mean, John.
I meant to say that one Judy used it, Joshua started to make sure that Judy does not forget about it.
This was the first point, Ordvic. The second is that the “big boy pant” argument may be tough to reconcile with Lennart’s posturing.
Yeah, you can try to claim that Lenny is old, and raises bigger issues. You might as well believe that Scotsmen wears big pants too. By this I am referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
That Lenny is 79 is independent from what he said (cf. ad hominem). And what he said has been misrepresented anyway by the media, something that is yet to see acknowledged by our Denizens. (Go team!) Also note that if Lenny only wished to raise bigger issues and was not affected by this, why the hell would he resign from the GWPF? As Chewbacca might say, this makes no sense!
So Judge Judy has yet to produce a credible narrative about Lenny’s pants. And this is small potatoes comparing to the secret handshake between Judy and Junior. But I’d rather stop now, for all this is just too silly.
Good night,
w
Willard,
Thanks for explaining I get it now.
Steven Mosher | May 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
Tony
‘Prof bengtsson confirmed there was a serious reaction from scientists OUTSIDE the UK.”
like you I have found that the reaction of UK scientists is much more measured and open than US types.
Joshua would not know since he has no experience and his chief interest is in misreading texts
Mosh…. This may seem like a weird comparison, but the US climate science community in a strange way mirrors the US record industry. They rely way too much on #1 hits and those hits dictate all the politics behind the scenes in the industry. A fine band like Split Enz never “broke” here in the states, because they didn’t have enough “hits”, and the record industry just wouldn’t support them.
The “rock stars” of climate science can do what ever they want, from presenting flawed data, as the IPCC did with its 35 years till glacier doom. Silly statements by several, including James Hanson, such as “We only have X amount of years to save the planet”, with no regard taken when that X amount of years passes and then a new X amount of years takes its place, advocating exaggeration and lying in order to scare enough people to at the way we want….
The “stars” of the climate field are quite free to go way over the line. The non-stars… Nope. Unless the tack in the “proper” direction.
On the whole, the information to date, scant and one-sided as it is, verges between absurd and foot-shooting.
There’s nothing in Dr. Bengtsson’s claims we can call justification for his actions: with an overwhelming swell among those of like mind, a very few voices have apparently made it to Dr. Bengtsson’s attention that did not approve wholeheartedly; an even smaller minority set out that in their view a boundary had been crossed by Dr. Bengtsson that would impact their willingness to participate with him in work; apparently Dr. Bengtsson extrapolated from this and no more that his very safety was threatened.
It’s not like we don’t expect propaganda, spin and spectacle from the tax-free GWPF. This is its modus operandi. However, when a man like Dr. Bengtsson runs away to join that circus, and then after sobering up thinks better of it, the shenanigans the GWPF will pull to take advantage of the fiasco so far as they can ought be given no more credit by the rest of the world than their claims to be an educational charity.
Absent detailed evidence offered freely by Dr. Bengtsson and a full chance to hear out their version from all those Lennart Bengtsson has accused of McCarthyism, any support for Dr. Bengtsson is premature and unwarranted.
Yeah Bart, I can just see how this played out in his mind.
Dr. Bengtsson thinking to himself… “I sure wish I hadn’t joined the GWPF, what was I thinking? I gotta get out of this situation some how… Let’s see, I could just go in and let them know I would rather be fishing during my retirement… Eh, but that is kinda wimpy. Hmmmm, I got it! I’ll fabricate a big lie. Yeah, that’s it. I’ll say my peers are hounding me to quit or else… Better yet, I’ve been threatened if I don’t quit. Yeah, co-authors will drop projects with me. And since I joined the GWPF with great fanfare, I doubt anyone will notice if I just tell this big lie to bow out. It will all go away so quietly and I won’t be bothered by anyone about it any longer…. Brilliant”.
I’ll bet good money that’s how it happened Bart.
What you haven’t thought of John Carpenter is perhaps the GWPF fashioned the lies for him.
Afterall how did that headline in the Times come into being? Dr Bengtsson had to distance himself from it. You bet the GWPF was involved in that headline.
John Carpenter | May 16, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
That’s.. a pretty fair summary of how the typical scientist thinks PR works.
Though, lolwot’s version is just as likely.
Point is, we don’t know and can’t know, absent full disclosure.
And no matter what is disclosed, the GWPF will fulfill their role as obfuscators and spinmeisters, so we can’t be confident absent thorough review of full disclosure.
And even then, until we hear the side of the story told by the people Dr. Bengtsson has flatly and nonchalantly accused of nothing less than terrorism, we have not been through process such charges.
“…GWPF fashioned the lies for him.”
Lolwot,
Yes, of course. I do see the error in my narrative. When telling a little lie, you want it to be little known. But when telling a whopper… Man you want to scream that kind from the mountains. And you have to get help and guidance from unscrupulous folks who are in the business of big lies… Like the GWPF. So I can totally agree that if I were a reputable scientist who based his entire career on being credible, publishing peer reviewed papers and teaching at a reputable university, the way I would go out is to be persuaded by others looking to save face to tell a whopper of a lie… And real unbelievable one too, one know one would buy into.
“Point is, we don’t know and can’t know, absent full disclosure.”
Very true. So it makes total sense to me that we should introduce another possible reason based on zero evidence. One that makes Bengtsson and the GWPF look questionable, you know, just to give balance.
“That’s.. a pretty fair summary of how the typical scientist thinks PR works.”
Bart, good to know you are also an expert on how scientists think PR works too. Thanks for that insight.
John Carpenter | May 16, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
Hypotheses non fingo.
Naomi Oreskes’ lecture “Scientific Consensus and the Role and Character of Scientific Dissent,” (at 8:07:10) which was given as the summary lecture of last week’s Pontifical Academy workshop Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility, reminds us of an important classification:
Past Strong-Science Dissent
• Anti Lysenkoism Dissenters were STRONG scientists.
• Anti H-bomb testing Dissenters were STRONG scientists.
Past Weak-Science Dissent
• Anti HIV/AIDS link Dissenters were WEAK scientists.
• Anti Fluorocarbon/Ozone link Dissenters were WEAK scientists.
• Anti smoking/cancer link Dissenters were WEAK scientists.
Present Weak-Science Dissent
• Anti CO2/warming link Dissenters are (mainly) WEAKER scientists.
Present ???-Dissent
• Autism/chemical link Opinions are highly variable!
Conclusions (1) Strong skepticism combines with strong science to yield strong dissent. (2) Strong skepticism combines with weak science to yield weak dissent. (3) Naomi Oreskes survey is highly recommended!
How the hell does Naomi Oreskes think she has the chops to categorize strong and weak scientists!
Dumb scientists – take people to court rather than prove their case within the arena of science.
Complaint by Jakehearts, link by FOMD!
Perhaps Naomi Oreskes is just one more
• outspoken
• well-informed
• female
• scientist/historian
who ignores the GWPF’s astro-turfing campaigns of ignorant ideology-driven criticism?
Conclusion Lennart Bengtsson should take an example from Naomi Oreskes sustained scientific commitment, robust indifference to unjust ideology-driven criticism, and (especially) her good-natured sense of humor!
Harvards hiring of Naomi is why I have informed that University that the large contributions they have been seeking for years will not be forthcoming anytime soon.
Her hubris is only exceeded by her fundamental lack of true intelligence. PC yes, smart no.
You have the science propositions backwards, Fanny. Models falsified by the pause using Santer’s own criteria. Discrepancy between observational and model ECS (Bengtssom’s rejected paper.) The Marcott mess posted on here last year. The consensus is weak science ignoring many uncertainties, and playing fast and loose with facts and the scientific method. Ignoring Feynmann’s admonition. Anyone from a lukewarmer (me) to a true sceptic has a whole lot of observational fact, very specific model critique (in my last book), and the common sense of adaptation versus mitigation (Tol) to rely upon.
You must be a real advocate of Lewis Carrol’s Through the Looking Glass. Remember, mirror images are backwards.
Principles by Rud Istvan, instances by FOMD.
I (and many) join you in deploring these willfully ignorant ideology-driven anti-science practices, Rud Istvan!
Perhaps Lennart Bengtsson too has come to a more clear appreciation of these realities … and that’s why he rescinded his intent to join the GWPF?
Rud Istvan | May 16, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
An alumn who won’t support his school, the foundation of his prosperity and future of his posterity?
Tch.
All we need know.
Future of his posterity? Doubtful unless he leads a very shallow life.
“An alumn who won’t support his school, the foundation of his prosperity and future of his posterity?
Tch.
All we need know.”
Heh.
They told him to question “the Man”, to demand reason and logic dictate his action instead of blind obedience to the received wisdom of his “betters”, to act for benefit of his society, his world and his environment. To stand up for his principles.
And he did.
At least, they did until they became “the Man” – then they wanted exactly the same as the old “Man” wanted; support without evidence, faith in leaders to do “what’s right”, ignore the little things and focus on the big picture.
They became what they taught him to despise, and so he withdraws his support for them. Perhaps he learnt his lessons too well, eh? Or perhaps “they” need to spend some time in self reflection to find out why – because they obviously haven’t noticed their own hypocracy.
Heh, Bart R, in contradistinction to his wont, tells us all we need know about him in four short words.
================
Kneel | May 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
Wow. That Rud Istvan, he’s a real Abbie Hoffman, he is.
Oh, wait; Abbie’s “The Man” now.
It is hopefully much later. So I will venture one remark on the above. To wit, how many of you went there and have my disavowal standing? In my own personal case, times three.
The fact that Abbie Hoffman is a cult hero in some quarters is a sad comment on US society.
> Heh, Bart R, in contradistinction to his wont, tells us all we need know about him in four short words.
“Read” is one, “harder” is two.
Where are number three and four?
For your reading pleasure: #3 & 4.
============
Rud Istvan | May 17, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
Far be it from me to tell anyone else how to give away their money, but consider endowing a Rud Istvan Harvard Chair in Telling Harvard What The Freak Is Wrong With Harvard.
Not like it would lack for qualified candidates, or isn’t urgently needed; and let’s face it, a far more legitimate educational tax write off than the GWPF. Plus, attaching your name to it would enhance its renown and your own. You could endow it at another school instead, of course, but that could be seen as petty.
In the mind of a “skeptic,”
“Reign of terror” = “Academic freedom is a central aspect of life at the University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
Prof Bengtsson clearly sated that the pressure came from the US scientists.
Reading University is in the UK.. (and I went there – trivia) given what a few US scientists felt free to say publicly, I can accept that is very likely.
Peter Gleick:
Sailor joins flat earth society; doesn’t understand why shipmates won’t sail with him?
Andrew Dressler:
Lennart Bengtsson resigns from @TheGWPF. He seems confused, which is consistent with him joining in the first place. That’s emeritus!
Bart Verheggen:
Would it be McCarthyism if evolutionary biologists expressed dismay about a colleague joining the Creationist Institute?
which fuels this sort of nonsense.(this guy has 360,000 follower on twitter)
Graham Linehan:
Aren’t Times journalists embarrassed? It’s like they’re still publishing David Irving. A proud history of denialism they’ve got going there
> Bart Verheggen: […]
Is that an example of an American scientist, Barry?
Please try again.
Barry Woods, a very nice short recitation of just some of the US ugliness. Bet Joshua cannot respond with facts rather than his usual supercilious pontifications.
As my Uncle, Golden Gloves and Olympic boxing trainer Joe Papke, would have said, TKO. Next bout.
https://twitter.com/SimonLLewis/status/467232013607763969
https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/467392382020108288
Willard, your team really should stop scoring own goals here. Gleick is in San Fransisco, and Dessler is in Texas. Last time I checked, those were both part of the US.
Here’s another English gentleman on Bengtsson, Sir Rud:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2014/05/bengtsson-burns-his-boats.html
My emphasis.
You’re welcome.
The trolls are working hard to inundate us with comments on this Bengsston story. A bunch of desperate clowns.
Thank you for stealing my “clown” idea, Don Don.
You’re an artist.
[w]
” As a result of smearings by Romm, Mann, et al., I am excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, a number of people won’t collaborate with me, and anyone who wants to invite me to be a keynote speaker has to justify this in light of all the cr*p that shows up if you google ‘Judith Curry’. Does any of this really ‘matter’? I’ve convinced myself that it doesn’t (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.”
I’m sorry this is the way things are for you, Judith. It’s appalling and shameful that this is going on pretty much right out in the open. Just as appalling, and just as shameful, is the cavalier manner in which people like Joshua dismiss….and even deny… the cold hard reality of experiences such as yours.
Just to add, the dismissals and denials on the part of many warmists on this blog, is almost impossible for me to grasp. The lack of simple human compassion is stunning.
Little joshie is here for the anklebiting. He dogs Judith to the best of his meager abilities, for the cause. It makes him feel important. Pathetic little character. Why Judith tolerates the runt is a deep mystery.
“Why Judith tolerates the runt is a deep mystery.”
Don, I’m glad she does. He’s far from alone in this. Better that it be exposed for what it is in the clear light of day . Warmism seems by its very nature to involve a certain nastiness of character.
I get what you mean, poker. But when I see a dumb little cockroach incessantly dancing around screaming at me, I’m gonna unceremoniously step on it.
“I’m gonna unceremoniously step on it.”
Which you do, very effectively. Mosher too.
There is at least one silver lining to this cloud. If anybody reads historic romances and questions what people were thinking when they got into all that dueling, well now you know.
Let me add one additional comment for our hostess, in the next 5-10 years we should have a much better indication which way climate is actually changing.
If temps aren’t rocketing up, of the warmists who still have a job in science, they will be working for people like Dr Curry.
Worse than clown, cockroach or ankle biter is that Josh is dishonest. He makes stuff up to fit his narrative. Clowns and cockroaches at least provide useful function.
Mi Cro
History will not judge some in this debate kindly. Not so for Judith.
Some people are relying upon history to right the wrongs of climate science; i.e., calling out the Schmidt’s and Michael Mann’s of Climategate and Climate Catastrophe fame. However, the younger generation seems little inclined to attach importance to a historical context; rather: it is immediacy, the here and now, and not even the future seem of much concern.
So, whatever rightings of wrongs that needs to be done, we need ourselves to remember our fathers on Normandy Beach, they, with purpose and forthrightness, began the push to topple the Reich from its perch of power.
It is up to us, in some sense the remnants of science “as it use to be” or at least how it use to be taught, to recapture and re-invigorate a process of inquiry and enlightenment such that the current crop of climate science laggards are displaced, paving the way for the new and wet-behind-the-ears to acquire an enquiring mind, a disciplined approach, an integrity of purpose, and a willingness to declare that at times, they have been wrong. They will need mentors to be sure, but there is an emerging awareness that the older generation is still needed in the work force. The older generation has to teach how things are done. The older generation may wear the metals of conflicts with the entrenched, the consensus makers, hidden behind bunkers overlooking a stormy sea and muttering: “They’ll not attack tonight.”
Whew, what a relief.
I like being on Freeman Dyson’s ‘side.’ As a non-scientist I need to express this clearly. I feel a greater affinity for the scientific advocates of the non-consensus position than I do for those pushing the consensus line.
Many of the scientists on the non-consensus side have remarked on the political pressure. I wonder if Willard and Joshua think they are all inventing it.
What happened to Bengstsson is not in and of itself McCarthyism. However it is unquestionably the latest in a long series of incidents of intimidation, bullying and smearing that has become the hallmark tactic of the consensus types. The No Pressure video I guess was symbolic of their desires.
Going back to Bjorn Lomborg following the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, I have witnessed hatchet jobs on all the major advocates of the non-consensus position. The Climategate emails highlighted some of them that happened behind the scenes, but enough has played out publicly to make it obvious to all.
It still does not rise to the level of McCarthyism. Perhaps that should be the new slogan of the consensus, bravely embodied here by FOMD, BartR, Joshua and Willard
Put it on a flag: “We’re not as bad as McCarthy.” And if there’s room on the banner feel free to add “Yet.”
How long may it wave,
The story now geschribben?
The finger moves on.
============
Tom Fuller, +1000
…… and perhaps a smaller font sub-text, if it can fit in the lower part of the banner, “Bad As We Wanna Be”
(in honor of Dennis Rodman, their spiritual fellow traveler)
Well, here’s what you can put on your team’s T-shirts, Tom:
“We don’t play the personal victim card in a big way,…”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/16/reflections-on-bengtsson-and-the-gwpf/#comment-556948
Tom Fuller | May 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
Calling me “consensus” is as anatocranially inverted as possible; doing it while clamoring to be on the ‘side’ of consensus with someone you admiringly claim you don’t understand?
Saying I back hatchet jobs is plain nonsense; wielding a hatchet while doing it is viciously absurd.
Attaching the McCarthyist label to me is outrageously hypocritical; I’m much, much worse: I reject absurd claims without valid evidence, and say so. You don’t think that’s the worst thing imaginable? Ask Joel McCarthy.
Oh, look. It’s Tom Fuller. Well, I guess we won’t need to ask Joel.
Dr. Judith Curry is Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; for a brief list of her well-earned honors and awards:
She’s almost as impressive as Michael Mann was by the time he graduated is PhDs, which is saying a lot.
Here are a few more salient points from Dr. Curry’s extraordinary curriculum vitae:
So when I see the claim of harm from typical backbiting by others in her field having had serious repercussions, I have to think perhaps within the context of more information that there is a bit more drama than necessary in the assertion, absent evidence.
The so-called “smear” Dr. Curry complains of is rote within academia; the infighting and tribalism and pettiness is the norm; those who consider people for posts, honors, speaking positions and responsibilities are fully aware of this and can figure crap out for themselves pretty well.
Moreover, they’re held to brutal standards of equity and their own positions balance on a razor edge: if they are guilty of ill treatment of a respectable academician, they will get pilloried and know it.
Frankly, the Wyatt & Curry paper, combined with Dr. Curry’s inability to recognize hoaxes and gross mathematical nonsense, would make me wonder at the decision to put Dr. Curry in a position of responsibility over people who do mathematics or hard sciences; that’s not really a worry as it’s not like people in the Earth Sciences ever really get that chance anyway.
Which is hardly likely to much constrain Dr. Curry’s opportunities in her chosen field: she is a senior faculty member of an institution whose football team outspends the entire IPCC by a ratio of 13:1, and it would be lunacy if Dr. Curry were a candidate for a position in a better school to not seriously consider her, warts and all, for the power her profile would have to bring in donors and grants.
So far as I can tell, the only people who badmouth Dr. Curry academically are that fringe who think Earth Sciences should be raised from the same bin as Geography or the soft sciences, and held to the same standards as the hard sciences. It’s not the majority view, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon.
That’s some pretty low mierda there, barty. Is this the way you want to be remembered?
Don Monfort | May 16, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
Irony much?
No irony, barty. But you may infer it, if it makes you feel better.
PS: the next time you are confused about irony, they may be able to help you:
http://www.isitironic.com/
Don Monfort | May 17, 2014 at 12:34 am |
Didn’t help you.
Perhaps if you READ HARDER?
Don’t be tedious, barty. That’s all I have for you. I must discuss my plans for entertaining guests tomorrow, with my best single malt. Give it a rest, old dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACUpr5GvVsE
This might help.
Thanks, Judith. Well done.
Regards
For more evidence of the one-sidedness of the debate, look at the media coverage and misquoutes for Rubio saying he thinks climate scientists have overstated the case for AGW. Joshua, Bart R., Fanny, et. al. can do all the hand waiving they want re: lack of evidence for McArthyism in the climate debate, but the evidence of that is orders of magnitude stronger than the evidence of AGW from any source, much less due to our imperceptibly small human contribution of Co2 into the climate system.
Barnes | May 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
Here you go:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:101/mean:103/from:1980/plot/uah/mean:101/mean:103/offset:0.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/trend/offset:0.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/offset:0.3/trend/plot/best/mean:101/mean:103/from:1980/offset:-0.181/detrend:0.17/plot/best/last:204/offset:-0.181/detrend:0.17/trend/plot/esrl-co2/mean:101/mean:103/from:1980/scale:0.01/offset:-3.35
You can’t even discern the CO2 level curve from the ensemble of rising, non-pausing global temperature curves at 95% confidence, so close is the correlation. The same correlation is seen across the paleo record, and in the case of the temperatures of planets other than Earth. It’s seen in the lab in the absorbtivity bands of the components of the atmosphere, and in direct measurement.
Our CO2 debt against the carbon cycle’s banking powers has been shown to be the cause of the rise in study after study; every time Salby’s claims are discredited, our credit with the carbon cycle bank is downgraded. We’re the cause, there are some ten thousand studies painstakingly exploring the evidence across fifty independent climate variable, and your claim is so wrong it beggars description in its bankruptcy.
It is known that NASA has stated that the temperatures of the other solar bodies have increased, but I have never see any numbers for this. It would be interesting to have some numbers since this is surely pertinent to any assesment of manmade influence in planet Eath’s recent temperature record.
We should surely have to deduct the same factor from any temperature records before attempting to attribute the remaining temperature rise to local factors such as cloud cover, co2, atmospheric moisture content, etc etc.
If the solar contribution to the temperature rises seen in the other planets is significant enough there may be no room left to attribute any of the recent years temperature increases to co2. We would have to conclude that it was the sun wot dun it even though we have yet to establish the mechanism.
Leif Svalgaard probably has access to those numbers. If he does then I suspect that although he is an example of how scientists should behave when it comes to be open with data and interfacing / engaging with the wider community (so much so that I believe he should be formally recognised for this), he might be reluctant to release that particular data set, since he is of the opinion that the sun’s energy output does not vary significantly enough.
I am struck by the peculiar meaning given to “good faith” and “bad faith” in Schmidt’s comment.
See also the quote from Gavin Schmidt:
“Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”
Now the dictionary says what I have always thought:
“Good Faith–
Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.
Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.”
How strange that Schmidt twists that to mean agreeing with his “faith”, since he is one of the keepers of “the faith.” And he claims that those outside the faith must be excluded from discussions. This is clearly “shunning” or excommunication, as practiced by religious communities.
It reminds me of the old Soviet show trials or perhaps Galileo. And it’s not just climate change. Look what happened to Hirsi Ali at Brandeis or Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers. What we are seeing is the totalitarian tendencies of the left in full flower. Since they know they are right about everything why should any other voice be heard?
“Since they know they are right about everything why should any other voice be heard?”
Precisely. Those on the left are convinced of both their intellectual and moral superiority. Competing opinions are dismissed out of hand as either stupid, or evil, or both. Concerning mainstream (read liberal) journalists, they cannot conceive even the possibility that they are wrong about global warming. They live and write in an intellectually and ideologically bullet proof bubble. As do the great majority of their readers. Most of my friends are liberal, and it’s literally impossible to introduce the slightest scintilla of doubt. It’s really quite amazing.
pokerguy WOW You and I have some of the same friends.
Steven,
your last sentence nails it. I’ve been told I am a smart guy, yet I have been wrong on many occasions and have screwed up as many more. I am happy to manage being correct slightly more often than not and being able to solve more problems than I create. One benefit is that I am open to the possibility of being wrong and am ok with admitting it when I am.
+1
+10 S.C. – “What we are seeing is the totalitarian tendencies of the left in full flower”
It’s reached a scary level.
I wonder if Door Crok is considering a follow-up interview with Dr. Bengtsson. A second day lead to his Lennart Bengtsson: “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong” interview article. It would make for some very interesting reading and could help to fill in the blanks.
Lennart Bengtsson: “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong”
May 1, 2014
Door Marcel Crok
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/01/lennart-bengtsson-the-whole-concept-behind-ipcc-is-basically-wrong/
Lennart Bengtsson speaks out
May 3, 2014
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-bengtsson-speaks-out/
An interview with the GWPF is also logical.
I also think an interview with Attorney General Eric Holder is logical as well.
Group pressure related to international issues is a Federal issue and it would be logical to define tactics which constitute criminal behavior.
Highlighting the penalties would also be logical.
Dr. Curry,
What can or should be put in place to ensure this never happens to another scientist?
What can or should be put in place to ensure this never happens to another scientist?
If you didn’t learn from Chicken Little and if you didn’t learn from the ‘king who has not clothes on’ , there is little hope.
The future will go down the wrong path, many times.
Hopefully, the Skeptics will always be there to fix problems.
popesclimatetheory,
I was think more on the lines of Codes of Conduct. Every US University, every Federal and State Agency, every US corp., every Foundation, etc. have codes of conduct. But, do they have a mechanism to receive complaints and is the mechanism easy to find?
If scientists receive correspondence which violates the Standards then the remedy is very simple.
If you’re going to address a problem its easiest during the first pass.
John McClure | May 16, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
And here it finally comes out.
Anyone remember http://www.monbiot.com/2001/10/16/the-new-mccarthyism/ ?
Ensuring WHAT never happens to another scientist?
That those who find he has acted in a way that they do not wish to associate themselves with never again have the freedom to dissociate?
That you’re obliged to work with someone who has joined an organization that you believe to be actively working against your interests as a human being at best, and engaging in and endorsing criminal activities at worst?
Suppose instead of Dr. Lennart Bengtsson joining the GWPF formally after a long informal tether, another academician came forward, a department head or chair or senior fellow, and said, “I am FOIA; I used my position to direct a computer technician to copy the personal communications of a number of people and then released portions of those copies in violation of the responsibility and authority entrusted me,” would you think it so terrible if people behaved the same?
A lot of people in academia regard the GWPF as extolling, supporting, and thriving off Climategate, despite it being a perversion of the protections of their rights to privacy of those victims of it. Sharing views with the GWPF on science is hardly a big deal, and no one seems to have criticized Dr. Bengtsson for that before he joined the GWPF ranks formally. Endorsing the violation of colleagues’ privacy by formally joining?
How dare you impose not just silence but compliance on anyone who would want to defend themselves from that?
Bart R,
This is a very simple issue which relates to Criminal Law.
There’s no question the group pressure was Intimidation but was it Criminal threatening? Dr. Bengtsson is the only person who can answer this.
Since Dr. Bengtsson was working and residing in England, a criminal offense would likely fall under English criminal law.
I personally think the GWPF has a responsibility to aggressive pursue matters of Intimidation and any Criminal Threat against a Board Member.
This has nothing to do with the ClimateGate email mess.
Bart R,
After considering your comment, I have to ask you. Were you one of the individuals who sent Dr. Bengtsson an email?
John McClure | May 17, 2014 at 8:53 am |
Nope.
Though I admire your use of inversion in proposing the GWPF pursue criminal complaints.
Dr. Bengtsson’s calumnies upon the field, these claims of pressure tactics amounting to the terrifying of himself into fear for his safety, require strong evidence given the strength of his assertions. Moreover, the evidence requires the strongest context, so extreme and extraordinary the claim, and so suspect such things now are after the unfortunate Gleick incident and the distortions surrounding Climategate.
So not just charges, but full disclosure of all communications in Dr. Bengtsson’s possession, because he’s cried wolf, and there might be a wolf.
And until we have such evidence, what do we say when someone’s cried wolf?
Bart R,
Stating that GWPF should do the responsible thing is a matter of common sense. The Intimidation will not stop until someone takes a stand and the stand should be taken by all scientific organizations not just the GWPF.
Your views are so strong/defensive I figured I’d ask if you sent an email to him. Hope you didn’t take it the wrong way, I was just curious.
John McClure | May 17, 2014 at 11:30 am |
I have zero stake in defensiveness; it goes with the anonymity thing and the not putting credentials after the anonymous tag. What you are reading is irritation.
The GWPF exists as a tax scam purporting an educational exemption for the purposes of lobbying government through the media and the back rooms a particular economic advantage to a particular lucrative identifiable group. It’s a marketing company for a specific set of products that seek financial advantage through influencing legislation, regulation and public perception.
The GWPF deserves a tax holiday like Exxon deserves subsidies. Which, to explain that for you corporate communists, is IT DOESN’T.
Do you hear me making this claim about WUWT? No, you do not. I don’t think much of WUWT, but I don’t think it’s a criminal organization.
While I’m sure there are a number of think tanks who have identical goals to the GWPF, and that claim the tax shield too, they generally get their tax free status the old-fashioned way: they exploit weak legislation and loopholes. And it’s not like anyone who works for them is also in a position of influence and trust at a publicly-funded institution, as Dr. Bengtsson does.
Would you want a senior administrator in your organization to be affiliated with a group that thinks your personal information such as your private emails are fair game for the world to see on their private whims or because of their political beliefs? The GWPF does. By extension, so too does Dr. Bengtsson. Which, where I working at the University of Reading, put me in a credible position of doubting my privacy would remain guarded.
So, yeah, I’m irritated. No one in a position of authority in any institution ought belong to a group that endorses email theft. None who works in actual education should endorse sham education tax exemptions. And no grown man who has been a political activist, as Dr. Bengtsson has for decades in his own country, ought be surprised by consequences of his actions, as he has most certainly is familiar first hand with this sort of thing.
Bart R | May 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
To clarify, that’s “were”, not “where”.
I can’t stand the climate of Reading, and don’t much like the food.
Bart R,
You lost me at the corporate communists part but you’re clearly angry about privacy. I can’t tell if its your personal home email or your University account you’re concerned about.
You don’t own a University account the University does. The same is true in a corporation or business which has the right to ensure proper usage.
Are you saying GWPF wants to monitor your home email account?
Bart R:
“The GWPF exists as a tax scam purporting an educational exemption for the purposes of lobbying government through the media and the back rooms a particular economic advantage to a particular lucrative identifiable group.”
I don’t agree with wording Bart uses but there is something to what’s above. One of the things we like to see is tax efficiency. We don’t like to have to spend money, but if we do, can we get a deduction for everything we spend? A non-profit can seem to function as a hybrid entity. With some position between charity and advocacy.
I’d put the goals of a 501(c)(3) in this order:
1) Preserve the non-profit status with the IRS
2) Perserve the reputation of the charity
3) Try to accomplish the mission
John McClure | May 17, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
Human frailty being what it is, the expectation of every employee to privacy protections in that same system where their ordinaries of salary and benefits, hiring and promotion and discipline, oversight by their managers and interactions with their colleagues has been identified in civilized nation after civilized nation after the model of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the USA as inviolable absent due process.
Are you calling the GWPF the right judge of private communications, or submission of private communications to the GWPF without challenge proper?
If so, then I ask, why do you hate America?
The old “unpatriotic” accusation.
Bart R,
I’m still uncertain what you’re specifically referring to.
A computer, its software, applications, and services like the internet are provided by USA employers to some employees. These are tools for business related activity and employee usage reflects on the employer. Its common practice to generally monitor usage (typically to help eliminate unnecessary bandwidth usage) but, though an employer can choose to review email, it isn’t very common.
Private usage of equipment etc. at home is a different story. It would require a search warrant issued by the Court for someone to enter a home and review anything. These individual rights are Allodial Rights which run with the ownership of land. If memory serves, the right to quiet enjoyment is the one which triggers the need for a warrant.
Note: there’s nothing private about the internet.
@ John McClure
“Dr. Curry,
What can or should be put in place to ensure ‘this’ never happens to another scientist?”
Short answer: Can’t be done.
Inevitably, the (progressive) foxes will be in charge of the henhouse. And ‘this’ is what they are and what they do. They are real life examples of the story about the frog and the scorpion. It is their nature.
Even the original ‘McCarthyism’ was a ‘this’: done TO McCarthy, rather than BY him. A classic example of Rule 12: “* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. ” History has shown that McCarthy was right: the US Government, the entertainment industry, and unions WERE heavily infiltrated by communists, many of whom were at or near the ‘pointy end of the power pyramid’ in their respective organizations, and McCarthy made an attempt to call attention to the danger and ‘root them out’. Unfortunately, for McCarthy, they had a LOT more power than he did, so ‘McCarthyism’ has gone down in history as described in: ‘http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism’ and McCarthy himself as evil incarnate. And the empirical history proving McCarthy right is irrelevant.
‘Climate Science’ writ large has become a religion in support of a political movement. Both are far less tolerant of apostasy than the Catholic Church. A few climate scientists (Dr. Curry and Professor Bengtsson, for example), familiar with the actual ‘science’ of climate science and aware of the fact that it is NOT settled, have naively pointed it out and are now enjoying all the perks and privileges of apostatehood for their trouble.
John McClure | May 18, 2014 at 9:13 am |
You present a very narrow statement which the courts and laws do not align with in any meaningful way.
Paper in the workplace is no different, but if a person’s paper correspondence, paper health notes from their doctor, paper company medical files or child’s application for company daycare or daycare worker’s notes on their children found their way into the open world, internet or not, that employer has failed in their duty to protect what are privileged communications and private matters.
To decide what is and is not private, courts and laws have set very simple rules: every communication that might have a reasonable expectation of confidence is protected by due process. Sure, technically, it is trivial to wade into a file system and mass copy everything to browse at leisure and publicize at whim. Just like wading into garbage bins is possible. It’s also still illegal and repugnant.
People who violate others’ expectations of privacy without due process and appropriate authority — which, by the way, I am not really all that much about; I empathize with the fantastical belief that in a more perfect world information wants to be free — are immoral. That’s what the definitions of the words and descriptions of the acts add up to. People who get caught doing it without due process and appropriate authority, once their acts are subject to due process of appropriate authority, are criminals. That is very much what the definitions of the words and descriptions of the acts add up to in the case of Climategate. There’s no real way around that. There’s only fantastical beliefs and rationalization.
The urge to privacy, the desire to want to keep one’s infant’s child care information and schedule and address and pictures off the internet, or one’s emails about lunch, or one’s notes about half-formed ideas, that urge is a human frailty. So too are fantastical beliefs and rationalizations human frailties. You don’t want your frailties violated, then how is it reasonable to violate the frailties of others?
Who raised you that you don’t grasp this?
Since the public funds Climate Science, it has a moral right to know what climate scientists are doing. Which includes releasing eg the Climategate files. That the body politic pushing climate alarmism is riddled with this sort of dishonesty and bias (seen yet again with the Bengtsson case), is not something the law should protect with privacy.
Bart R,
I’m speaking from personal experience and I’ve been using corporate computers for 24 years. Yet, my experience has largely been with large corporations which have HR departments and employee websites to manage personal information.
A corporation would never make an employee’s email public unless forced to do so which typically requires response to a legal action. Complying with a discovery order comes to mind but the compliance would be handled by corporate legal.
Maybe you’re right but it hasn’t been my experience.
What does this have to do with GWPF?
Tuppence | May 18, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
Since the public funds Climate Science, it has a moral right to know what climate scientists are doing.
=======
I disagree with you.
If you’re referring to reproducible research results and proper archiving of data etc. then I completely agree but this has nothing to do with morality as its supposedly standard practice (the norm).
No one needs to see the day to day emails which are likely to include Honey Dos like don’t forget to… or the kids just threw up all over the place.
Don’t throw all scientists under the bus because of the behavior of a handful of climate characters.
John McClure | May 18, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
Yes, yes, and I’ve been advising the people who make the decisions about the corporate computers guys like you use so they don’t fall afoul of little things like the law, loss of trust from their employees, loss of faith from their investors and the like for longer than you’ve been using corporate computers.
As to how this relates to the GWPF, we got here from the postulate of putting ourselves in the position of a person who is an employee of an institution that might have something in its systems somewhere that the GWPF might deem itself interested in, and then imagining the thought process of such an employee — knowing the GWPF does not believe in due process and endorses theft of corporate data or any other action to support its goals — upon hearing someone in a position of authority in that organization has joined the GWPF.
You have to see the clear conflict of interests and duties, from the point of view of such an employee.
Given that the second most popular theory is that someone in a position of trust at UEA betrayed this trust to perpetrate Climategate, it’s not an unreasonable sentiment.
Lennart Bengtsson would, after last month’s shenanigans, be toxically impossible to trust in any position of administrative authority, from the point of view of data security, just as if he’d publicly announced he’d joined Anonymous though slightly moreso than if he’d admitted he worked for the NSA or the FSB, as let’s face it, they’re less likely to actually understand or care about anything they purloin.
Bob Ludwick | May 18, 2014 at 11:28 am |
By all means, correct the unwashed masses about empirical history.
Which exact names were the names you say were active communists as described by Senator McCarthy? Which exact positions of power did these saboteurs occupy? From when to when?
The records of those times are easy to obtain from the Russians, who have reams of files they’ve released since the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course, impossible to trust spies, so if you have other, reliable sources of actual evidence, by all means, provide it.
Otherwise, crying wolf after the sheep have long since grown up, been sheared, their wool knitted into sweaters, and the sweaters worn out and moth eaten.
Bart R,
Good to know you have extensive experience with privacy issues but I hope your advise to clients is more logical than what you’re saying.
– The is no reason to assume the GWPF would act in any manner other than professional.
– The is no reason to assume English law would allow anyone to simply wonder into an office and read personal information.
– Your claim about GWPF having anything to do with ClimateGate is silly.
– If the illegally released ClimateGate emails were not news worthy there never would have been a ClimateGate.
– None of the issues you are referring to have anything to do with Dr. Bengtsson.
– Dr. Bengtsson can choose to show the emails he has received to anyone he chooses and in my opinion should.
We clearly disagree about the facts.
@John McClure
Minor quibble. No one knows if it was illegal. If someone from the outside hacked them, it would be illegal. But if a whistleblower released them then it would not be a criminal matter, but a company/organizational matter. Until FOIA comes forward (if s/he ever does), the legality is unknown.
– The is
s/b
– There is
John McClure | May 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
You’re quite free to subscribe to your own version of the facts.
Security concerns are all well and good, but HR concerns are entirely different, and the crux of the point you keep sidestepping.
How do you convince your employees that their emails are going to be treated as confidential when a senior key administrator signs on with a group that has used the phrase “by any means possible” in expounding its mission, so closely linked to Climategate?
Pretending no link in the public mind between the GWPF and Climategate is simply playing the naif, and does not satisfy.
Dr. Bengtsson has not conformed to the standard of conduct expected of a man in his position, by his own choice.
That’s not a security issue, but if employees think it is, it’s an HR issue he has created by his conduct.
Yes I refer of course to what publicly funded climate scientists do in their work, not when they need to pick the kids up etc. Hiding data, hiding the decline, gatekeeping journals, various other assorted sabotage of science upon which the Consensus rests.
Don’t throw all climate scientists under a bus because of the actions of a few? Well, given that virtually all keep silent on the actions of the few caught with their pants down, we can but conclude they find nothing wrong with Climategate-type dishonesty, which suggests that such dishonesty is standard practice.
So your point boils down to saying that : if enough people do a bad thing, it becomes good.
Maybe its time for LB to retire and distance himself from the community as an independent? I am the same age as LB. I spend about 5-6 hours a day doing climate research, or other technical stuff. It is amazing what a retired scientist can accomplish if he doesn’t work for an institution, doesn’t attend meetings, doesn’t commute, doesn’t have to work on a specific charge number, and can express his views without bowing to the management.
Maybe I’m wrong, but:
McCarthyism is the wrong term, since Joe was correctly identifying many who were Communists and that needed to be called out by someone. It was good guys going after the bad ones.
Schmidt’s faith statement is closer to what’s going on and it’s surprising he admits this, perhaps inadvertently.
-Tribalism and witch hunting with the intent to shut down science and scientists who aren’t on board with a so-called consensus. This unprofessional and unethical behavior has seemed to increase as the accuracy of the failed CAGW hypothesis has withered and diverged from observation and reality. This nasty state of climate science is bad guys going after the good ones or anyone who feels being skeptical is good for science.
The problem with the original McCarthyism isn’t that there weren’t some actual Communists trying to infiltrate the US government. That was known.
The problem was the McCarthy ruined so many people by such broad brush attacks, without basis. People who weren’t communists, or who had seen what Stalin did and had ceased being communists, couldn’t get jobs, and had their reputations ruined. It was a widespread witch hunt. There is a reason that Joseph Welch won fame for his accusation to McCarthy, “At long last, Sir, have you left no sence of decency?”
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Welch
No historical analogy can be exact. McCarthyism today means that you use a position of authority to attack people, harm their reputation and career, without basis.
The only thing Bengtsson did wrong was to try to advance science as he knows it by reaching out to a skeptics group as a means of furthering debate. I do think that McCarthyism is an accurate account of what happened to him.
Gavin Schmidt is scary. He could be the model for George Orwell’s 1984. In his zealotry he does not even realize how destructive his insistence upon uniformity is – even to his own career eventually.
Science will not be dictated to by the opinions of small men. But it can be obscured by their intolerance of science itself.
Science will not be dictated to by the opinions of small men.
WHAT?
{fill in the blank} will not be dictated to by the opinions of small men.
In History, it has happened many times that, {fill in the same blank} was dictated to by the opinions of small men.
Science has ofter been dictated by the flawed opinions of small men.
@popesclimatetheory – I should have been clearer. In the short term, small men can dictate anything. We have seen that especially in the 20th century. In the long term, truth does come out. You are not going to build science on Lysenkoism. You can paper over the present, but theories built upon lies do not stand up to the test of time.
In the annals of science, those small men will not even be a foot note. You do not hear about the hundreds of failures to build an airplane. You hear about the success.
Bring in the big women, I say!
Well, there’s a fat lady warming up the pipes in the wings.
========
The imagery evoked from your statement is priceless! Thanks!
Faustino, they make the rockin’ world go ’round.
The trouble with the “good faith” test is that it presumes we can determine people’s true motivations.
We can’t, of course, so instead we judge their opinions, based on the presumption that any opinions we vehemently disagree with can not have arisen from a sincere search for the truth.
When we see their behavior it is fair to assume mixed or conflicting motives.
For example: Gavin takes no notice of groups like UEA when they take money from Shell. He takes notice of other groups when they take fossil fuel money.
Conclusion: we can treat him AS IF he is acting from bad faith.
We cant know his motivations, but we can assume fairly that his motives
are mixed or that he is suffering from dementia. Neither is good.
rabbit, I disagree, I think we have a capacity to distinguish between those with good intentions and those who do not, whatever they say.
> we can treat him AS IF he is acting from bad faith.
Is Gavin honest?
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/29/is-gavin-schmidt-honest/
Vintage 2005.
We have some capacity for that, but our arrogance gets in the way. Too often we are so convinced in the correctness of our beliefs that we think no one could sincerely disagree with us. Therefore our opponents must have ulterior motives.
A far better approach is to not question your opponent’s motives — they are irrelevant to the truth anyway — and instead focus on his or her arguments.
Steven Mosher: For example: Gavin takes no notice of groups like UEA when they take money from Shell. He takes notice of other groups when they take fossil fuel money.
It certainly contributes to “the perception” that he is acting in bad faith.
“For example: Gavin takes no notice of groups like UEA when they take money from Shell. He takes notice of other groups when they take fossil fuel money.”
The difference is UEA perform scientific research irrespective of the source of their funding. Shell giving money to UEA is Shell greenwashing. It’s not a plausible vehicle for influencing the science UEA does.
Whereas an outfit like Heartland solely exists to promote the politics of it’s donors. It doesn’t even have any good reason to be involved in climate research in the first place, and any funding from fossil fuel money only highlights what is going on there.
“The difference is UEA perform scientific research irrespective of the source of their funding. Shell giving money to UEA is Shell greenwashing. It’s not a plausible vehicle for influencing the science UEA does.
Whereas an outfit like Heartland solely exists to promote the politics of it’s donors. It doesn’t even have any good reason to be involved in climate research in the first place, and any funding from fossil fuel money only highlights what is going on there.”
Amazing! The source of the funding determines if that source can influence the results. I never would have guessed it could be so, and am somewhat sceptical – do you have anything to even suggest this is so?
lolwot,
“The difference is UEA perform scientific research irrespective of the source of their funding. Shell giving money to UEA is Shell greenwashing. It’s not a plausible vehicle for influencing the science UEA does.”
I bet you don’t even see the irony in this. That donating money to UEA would constitute “greenwashing” for Shell.
Willard
“Is Gavin honest?”
stupid question in this context. One can be truthful and still act in bad faith
lolwot
you dont get it. I’m the judge of Gavin’s bad faith. I see his behavior. I am allowed to infer motivations to make sense of them. I am saying that if he wants to indicate good faith that he needs to be consistent on a particular issue. Taking money from fossil fuel companies. Reducing his footprint, etc
I most certainly get to make this judgement and it’s a rational judgement.
The truth about his “real motives” which cannot be observed is really beside the point
There is no third party that will come along and settle the matter of his good faith or bad faith, its created in our exchange and that exchange is governed by his behavior and my judgement.
My impressions of Joshie since he first started commenting is that he isn’t interested in the facts or even the logic, just in arguing the semantics. I think in one post, he was reduced to arguing the meaning of the word “the”! True troll-like behaviour. I have to say that yet again, he doesn’t disappoint. No doubt, next he will be telling us the consensus view on how many angels there are on the head of a pin.
I once had a colleague, while not working for me, felt compelled to come into my office on a whim to argue with me about some of my decisions (his budget), until I couldn’t help myself and blew. They said they could hear me at the other end of the building.
Just like Joshua, arguing for the sake of arguing.
AGW is built on straw-men and ambiguity. The closer it gets to home the more active Fan-boy and Joshua get as a rule. The goal is to get off-topic ASAP. This story is killing them because it confirms the culture that publicly to them is a “vast right-wing conspiracy” theory.
Insects aren’t important, the thing to note here are the efforts of Dr. Bengtsson throwing mud like “McCarthyism” and watching establishment figures back such a historical distortion and distraction without comment or correction. In short, we have to swallow some liberal orthodox if we get to watch this imagined correction of AGW liberal orthodox. It’s a face-saving peer pinhead tag line requirement if ever there was one.
On reflection, I am persuaded that FEAR of death from
1. Nuclear annihilation in 1945 started the chain of events that surfaced in 2009 as Climategate, and
2. Retaliation for 69 years of deceit prevents public admission that the AGW predictions were wrong.
Bengtsson’s even handed written response about the rejection of his article is the kind of thing that one would expect from an excellent scientist who has received many top awards. Kind of turning the other cheek, saying that bad things can happen in peer review, but that even with its faults, we have to retain institutions that have served science well.
So why on earth did such a fellow also say that this:
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”
Clearly, Bengtsson’s mental capacities are still with him. Clearly, he is not a skeptic of the idea that CO2 warms the planet. Clearly he is of top repute, as the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology; winner of the 2005 Descartes Research Prize; and winner the 2006 World Meteorological Organization IMO Prize.
So if someone like Bengtsson says he has been the recipient of such a strong campaign of world wide pressure that he feels the need to worry about his health and safety, something has gone terribly wrong in science.
Bengtsson’s only sin was to reach out to skeptics and to try to engage them. For this he is being trashed.
So if someone like Bengtsson says he has been the recipient of such a strong campaign of world wide pressure that he feels the need to worry about his health and safety, something has gone terribly wrong in science.
It has been this way for a while. I have heard from others who felt the pressure. It is time to open climate science up to open view by all and take it away from the Consensus Police.
Dr. Curry: I too wish to thank you for your hard work and integrity. I consider you a model of good faith.
I’m saddened a scientist of your caliber should be penalized, but that’s the state of climate science these days. I’m grateful you continue to fight the good fight as best and as honestly as you can.
Hi Judy- A thoughtful piece. I do not see any problem with advocacy. All think tanks engage in advocacy (it is lobbying and campaigning often prohibited under law, e.g., in US and UK,not advocacy). I wouldn’t too much on a distinction between “think tanks” and “advocacy organizations.”
Any of us experts involved in public engagement are advocating something. I think its best for science as a whole that we be open about that. Thanks!
I do NOT see any problem with advocacy. Sorry, important word.
> Any of us experts involved in public engagement are advocating something.
Then we still have this to reconcile:
Something’s amiss.
***
Let’s not forget the main point of Judy’s editorial: green hypocrisy and bigotry.
“Let’s not forget the main point of Judy’s editorial: green hypocrisy and bigotry.”
reading Fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Advocacy is fine if clearly labeled. Hansen is a good example of how it can be done, even if he goes over the top regularly.
But there is a price for advocacy that scientists pay. Vulnerability to attacks motivated by their advocacy means there is a risk to their career. Some are not willing to pay that price.
What is reprehensible is the situation now where it is a given that advocacy of the non-consensus position will result in politically motivated attacks.
There have been a number of papers written and articles published on what I consider a decline of science–fraudulent findings, non-reproducible results, desk drawer syndrome, poor funding policies, etc. We may have witnessed the end of the Golden Age of Science, and possible the incredible benefits that era brought us.
Certainly the behavior of the consensus regarding dissenting scientists is evidence of such a decline.
97% of nothing is nothing.
I suspect you mistook incipient doubt for stealth. Now, repair the harm.
=======================
Regardless of advocacy policy doesn’t the public deserve a simple disclosure of climate scientists political associations, in particular when they claim political consensus along these lines?;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
Many in the public have an idea about academia, journalists, Hollywood, Washington Press core etc. and their voting records and cultural. How is it after all these decades we don’t have a simplified political survey of that would-be policy making “consensus”??
Why don’t rationalists in the climate community demand the disclosure? We’re not talking about individual reporting but survey data of a group claiming political consensus. I suspect many would lie at this point to false flag, I have a pretty low appraisal opinion of community but I still think the effort would be helpful even if it was sabotaged along the way.
Just one side question Dr. Pielke and Dr. Curry would never reply but I’m offering to either of you, if journalists are 7% self-identifying to the GOP what would be your guess of the broad domestic Climate Science community? 5%, 10% etc.?
My bet would be about 2%. It’s a left-wing enclave and further obfuscations of this fact at this stage in history is appalling. We’re not talking about personally forcing political disclosure and another fake claim of “McCarthyism”.
It would have to modified for international surveying but even domestically it would be confirming. It’s irrational to cling to “it’s about science” not politics on the face of it. The I.D. disclosure is essential and should be credible.
Tom Fuller,
“We may have witnessed the end of the Golden Age of Science, and possible the incredible benefits that era brought us.”
I couldn’t agree more. But you won’t like my opinion of why that is. Government has taken over the funding of even basic research. So basic research has to be justified to the government bureaucrats who make the funding decisions.
I linked to an article a while back by a couple of Yale department heads who bemoaned the fact of the “graying” of scientific research due to the grant process. They described the symptoms, but could not diagnose the disease.
When government funds science, it chooses the winners and losers. The government decides what research should proceed and what should not. And there is no way in hell government is going to fund research that is designed to undermine the very “consensus” government has spent so much money building, And I am not referring only to climate science.
Government sucks at science.
willard
“Let’s not forget the main point of Judy’s editorial: green hypocrisy and bigotry.”
proof by assertion.
Her main point is right here:
“So what is the impact on a scientist of the so-called climate McCarthyism? As a result of smearings by Romm, Mann, et al., I am excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, a number of people won’t collaborate with me, and anyone who wants to invite me to be a keynote speaker has to justify this in light of all the cr*p that shows up if you google ‘Judith Curry’. Does any of this really ‘matter’? I’ve convinced myself that it doesn’t (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.”
Her closing point is about her reassesment.
and yes she makes passing swipes at hypocrisy. But if that were her main point you’d expect to see more backing it up.
You want to talk about the marginalia because you dont want to discuss her main point.
Find a piece of science that actually interests you and do it.
If you want to go administrative and stuff, that’s not science.
I used to call computer modelling a management career choice, as contrasted with the rest of us with our actual physics pde’s.
One is the appearance of science and the other is science.
One difference is that the guys showing up on weekends and holidays to work are the science guys, not the modellers.
Apparently science alone is rewarding, in the end.
rhhardin: No; not: “Find a piece of science that actually interests you and do it.”. Actually: “Find a piece of science you can get funding for”. And if the main funders in the Obama administration are highly biased, you’d better be similarly biased – unless you are retired (like me).
As an interesting comparison with the Bentsson case, consider the case of Michael Oppenheimer, now at Princeton U.
He spent most of his career as Barbra Streisand’s favorite climate scientist, at the radical Environmental Defense Fund, before being appointed to an illustrious tenured faculty position at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/
So far as I am aware there has never been the slightest peep from the mainstream climate science “community”….
I am not questioning Oppenheimer’s scientific credentials on some respectable level anymore than someone should question same for Bengtsson.
I am merely pointing out the extreme double-standard between how a “politically correct” scientist is allowed to marry a career in the highly partisan and activist EDF straight into the highest circles of academe, with the squalid treatment of Bengtsson, who after a long, distinguished career as an academic scientist dares to take on a minor scientific advisory role that does not meet with the political approval of the gatekeepers.
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton faculty, and friends, please try to explain the distinction(s) for all to see.
heaven forbid that Bengsston should ever join forces and take money from a non-scientific activist like Barbra Streisand to pursue his work….. that is only permitted for the Michael Oppenheimers of the CliSci world:
http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/statement/barbra-climate-change
Streisand’s own words on the financial/activist connection with Oppenheimer:
[emphasis added]
My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989,
So the Consensus Alarmists Side has people who admit they spend big bucks for Alarmism.
They usually only say the Skeptic side has the most money.
In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1-million Dan David Prize for “achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world”
-Wikipedia.
similarly, Oppenheimer was one of the Heinz Award recipients sharing $1 million ($100K each). 5 of the 10 recipients of that year’s awards had quite explicit ties to climate change hype:
http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/in-the-news/heinz_award_2010A.pdf
No shortages of funds for people on the consensus bandwagon…..
Judith, well said. I add my condolences about the marginalization and ‘shunning’. But don’t think such behavior is only in climate science, or only in academia. It happens in the business world all the time between opposed camps, especially over matters of strategy and ‘corporate essence’. And the game in that world has equal or greater personal career consequences.
There are several ‘fact based’ things worth noting about this kerfuffle.
(1) Prof. Bengtssom was perhaps a little bit naive, given (to mention only two examples) what Holdren called Pielke Jr and what Mann called you after you both gave well intentioned, well supported, and hardly controversial Congressional testimony that did not hew to the party line. Especially naive about possibly thinking he ‘can go back’ despite today’s statement.
(2) Without knowing whether Bengtssom’s rejected paper was good or bad (since not published for evaluation), it is clear the reviewer had political ‘science is settled’ and ‘97% consensus’ rather than scientific motives for recommending rejection. With ERL’s release of the entire referee review today, that becomes clearer to anyone who can read. As does ERL’s complicity in avoiding discrepancies between observation and model, made clearer by their hasty effort to deny same. Steve McIntyre said that best today.
I would point out in addition, you published Nic Lewis here in July 2011 on how IPCC AR4 had transmogrified the Forster and Gregory 2006 ECS from the scientifically correct mode of 1.6 to the politically correct mode of 3ish in WG1 Chapter 10.5. And I published here in July 2012 on how Annan’s 2011 Climate Change paper using informed priors actually resulted in ECS modes of 1.8 and 1.9 in Figure 2, which were never discussed. The first instance is a clear cut example (Marcott 2013 is another, discussed here in two posts) of plainly distorted science. The second instance is another example of the ‘consensus conspiracy of silence’ about inconsistencies and discrepancies. Bengtssom’s paper would have ‘officially’ pointed these out for sensitivity in ERL. Hence it could not be allowed, as the ‘science is settled’.
But the actual contrary facts are out there anyway in ways that reviewers and ERL, and all the bad ‘97% consensus’ stuff, can never erase. Just like the pause, which was first denied, then ignored, and now being excused in increasingly absurd ways (missing heat, La Nina,…). Facts are stubborn things.
(3) The Internet really has changed everything, especially in academia. the papers are accessible. Anyone can easily scrutinize the arguments, get data (if archived as it is supposed to be), do their own amalyses, draw their own conclusions. It is to 21st century academia what Gutenberg’s printing press was to 15th century Catholic monasticism. The biggest thing is not the sorts of attack dog barking that Romm does, or the apologist pseudoscientific drivel and half truths posted at SKS. It is the sort of thoughtful, fact based scientific give and take that blogs like you and Steve McIntyre provide and facilitate. Better than Nature or Science, ten times better than Scientific American or Discovery or National Geographic, and hundreds of times better than main stream media. In the instant internet fed kerfuffle, ERL has already lost.
(4) Main stream media increasingly picking up and reporting on things like this kerfuffle is a very hopeful sign. Cracks in the consensus, discrepancies between what is alleged and what common sense and observation say is so (2014 NCA confusing weather with climate!?!), are growing too great.
‘Consensus’ ugliness will undoubtedly increase with desperation (Lewandowski recursion being a recalled unethical paper example, Bengtssom being a shunning example, Holdren being a childish name calling ‘Chicago politics’ example). Take it as a badge of honor from frightened opposition. You are helping guide climate research back to science. Remember, when you are up to your *** in alligators, it is hard to remember the mission was to drain the swamp. (One of two unofficial Army Corp of Engineers slogans.) The swamp appears to be draining nicely.
+ 1000 Rud.
Rud Istvan | May 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Excellent post!
Great post !
:o)
As far as the cllimate war of words name calling the use of climate McCarthism seems very effective (ie see drudge headlines today). Calling a leftist a McCarthyist is a straight right hand punch to the nose. I didn’t think there was any good retort to being called a denier but this certainly qualifies. Denier is actually more subtle. Both skeptic and alarmist are pretty lame. I’m sure we can expect a left hook counter punch and an all out smear of Bengtsson in the coming days.
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ~~Minitrue
It is demeaning to the victims to describe what is being perpetrated against Bengtsson now and others previously as “advocacy”.
“Advocacy” is speaking in favor of a proposition. Leveling social and economic attacks against people who hold a different opinon as a punitive deterrent against the expression of those opinions is not advocacy. It is oppression.
Scientists as advocates is a worthy topic, but it is not this one. This is scientists as bigots, bullies and persecutors.
For lefties, lies, slander and character assassination are how they do advocacy. Anyone who disagrees with them is racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist……
With Bengtsson, they were just doing a little “advocacy” to help him get his mind right.
I liken the way Lennart has been treated to a woman who has been raped. It is not unusual in these circimstances for people to try and claim that the woman is a criminal, and not a victim. She brought it on herself by the way she behaved, This is what Joshua et al are saying. We need to hear from the people who forced Lennart to resign from the GWPF. But my guess is that they are too cowardly to come forward and tell their side of the story.
> I liken the way Lennart has been treated to a woman who has been raped.
I’m sure all women will agree.
***
> She brought it on herself by the way she behaved, This is what Joshua et al are saying.
Wow. Just wow.
WOW.
Well played, Jim!
Jim.
science is not divorced from politics.
lesson: anything goes.
answer: be glad for that. there are mails. more mails.
be patient.
Jim –
Is that what I (and et al.) am saying? Where did I say that?
Perhaps here?:
Was that it?
Joshua, it is not the words that you write, but your attitude to the issue.
Jim –
So where from my attitude, in direct contrast to my words, do you derive that my take on Bengtsson is that he is a criminal, and brought on himself the way that he was treated? Was it here?:
And if you don’t mind, which aspect of how he was treated was analogous to a woman being raped?
Jim –
Hows about this?:
JIm –
Maybe this?:
This, Jim? –
Oh, I think this might be it, eh?:
Are you a “skeptic” or a skeptic, Jim?
Joshua, let me ask you a simple question. In resigning from the GWPF, do you believe that Lennart has been victimized? My guess from your attitude is that you cannot honestly answer this with an unqualified YES.
Jim –
–> “Joshua, let me ask you a simple question. In resigning from the GWPF, do you believe that Lennart has been victimized? My guess from your attitude is that you cannot honestly answer this with an unqualified YES.”
I don’t know what happened, Jim. If it is merely a matter of people saying that they won’t continue to co-author with him because they find the political implications of his activism disturbing, then no, I don’t think he has been “victimized.” If someone made a death threat, then yes, I think that he has been “victimized.” I’m sorry that you interpret my answer as meaning that it is analogous to saying a woman is responsible for being raped, but IMO, that is an hyperbolic over-reach. I don’t see the two situations as being even remotely analogous.
I would go further: One of the problems here is that self-described “skeptics” are willing to determine that Bengtsson was victimized w/o even knowing what actually happened. And they don’t just stop there. They go on to exploit the history of McCarthyism, or Lysenkoism, or Naz*sm, by equating what happened to Bengtsson to those situations. And they do this w/o even knowing what happened to him?
But suppose he did receive a death threat. Would that really be analogous to what took place in those historical events? He would be a victim, yes, ad nothing that I’ve seen would any way be justification for such a victimization. He would not be rightly described as “bringing [death threats” onto himself. But even if that had occurred, it would not be at the level of the kinds of victimization that occurred in those historical references. Making such analogies, I consider that to be drama-queening of a magnificent proportion.
And in contrast to what you determined about my “attitude,” that is precisely what I said all along. It is actually independent of the issue of whether he was victimized. For all I know, he may have been. But that was not my point of focus. My point of focus was the self-victimization mentality, so prevalent in the climate wars, that leads to the kind of rhetorical over-reach so abundantly on display in that previous thread, and through the climate wars on a regular basis.
As I thought, you have not answered my question.
–> “As I thought, you have not answered my question.”
Yes, Jim, you thought correctly. I won’t answer whether he was a victim if I don’t know what happened, and I’m only willing to describe various conditions under which I would say he was a victim.
You are a very smart man to figure that out about me.
Patience is a virtue, moshe. I just wanna get out before the schadenfreude hits, but I fear I’m too late.
=============
‘delectatio morosa’
‘schadenfreude’
et-cet-era,
such rich phrasing
describing such a
measly-minded
human failing.
Give me strength, Lord, or the NSA, whoever is in charge here.
=============
Jim,
I have am married to and have dated women who have been raped.
I’m sympathetic, but lousy analogy.
Steve Mc has a post up on this. I hope Bengtsson allows us to see the paper.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/16/iop-expecting-consistency-between-models-and-observations-is-an-error/
Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
…
3.Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4.Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
…
Convinced of their intellectual superiority and moral rectitude and considering denial to be a psychopathology – is really no basis for honest discourse. Moreover it seems a continuation of the culture war of the past than any new manifestation. An opportunistic means of achieving generational goals of control over economic and political processes. These remain noisy fringe cranks with little chance of making much headway in robust democracies other than by obfuscation, dissimulation and obscuring of their true goals. They are truly barbarians within the walls of the citadel of enlightenment.
Considering that the climate paradigm has moved on and that the scientific anomalies accumulate – the frantic activity seems more circling of the clown cars than a strategic advance. The real problem is the policy confusion they sow in the interim. There are pragmatic ways forward but not any that seem amenable to the autocratic dynamic of the groupthink.
It has seemed to me for more than a decade that the reason “Green’s” have aligned so closely with AGW, is that it gives them leverage that they have lacked, to drive the world closer to their ideal, the world as a nature park devoid of most of the traces of humans.
I think it is pretty obvious. There is not a scintilla of decency amongst any of these people.
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
My comment is awaiting moderation. Merely for quoting these people.
It made it through – and is an excellent comment.
General Skip,
those quotes lead one to believe that when people talk about carbon pollution, they are referring to human beings.
Judith, a fine post.
Unable to stand free and unfettered inquiry, the “green” religion embraces the principles of the Spanish Inquisition, soon to be followed by embracing the actual methods of the inquisition. Torture and then burn the “deniers” at the stake!
The Green Inquisition is well underway.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bengtsson is a typical warmist and fully supports the central IPCC fictions including the physically impossible process of self-heating by own heat, also known as the “greenhouse effect” and presented by the IPCC in their reports (heating the Earth surface by back radiation).
This is how Mr. Bengtsson explains the “greenhouse effect”: “These properties create the large surface heating that characterizes the greenhouse effect, by means of which the atmosphere allows a considerable fraction of solar radiation to penetrate to the Earth’s surface and then traps (more precisely, intercepts and reradiates) much of the upward terrestrial infrared radiation from the surface and lower atmosphere. The downward reradiation further enhances surface warming and is the prime process causing the greenhouse effect. This is not a speculative theory but a well-understood and validated phenomenon of nature”. The only difference to the IPCC version is the use of the term “downward reradiation” instead of “back radiation”. (http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv96pas.pdf, p.91)
I will accept your characterization of him. If so, isn’t it ironic how skeptics are coming to his defense. In a million years could you imagine warmists rallying to the defense of a
skeptic?
nottawa rafter says: “isn’t it ironic how skeptics are coming to his defense.”
==============================
No, it is not, because they do not know that he is a warmist. You can see how easy so many people are to fool, you do not even need to lie, they will create the lie themselves in their minds, all you need is to push them a little bit.
Greg House: The downward reradiation further enhances surface warming and is the prime process causing the greenhouse effect. This is not a speculative theory but a well-understood and validated phenomenon of nature”
I take it you are denying that?
Word usage and self-identification vary a lot, but I think that is the “lukewarmer” position. For most skeptics (afaict) the skepticism comes from doubting that to be a complete and accurate description. To get from that statement to a particular claim (e.g. doubling of CO2 will cause 1.3C of global mean temp increase really rapidly) entails many further propositions of doubtful provenance.
Matthew R Marler says: “I take it you are denying that?”
==============================
Yes, I am. Back radiation can not heat the source of radiation, even if 100% is reflected back to the source of radiation by a perfect reflector. The situation is not different from the one where two equal bodies of equal temperature are facing each other. Everyone knows that they do not heat each other.
Greg
If they didn’t know before, they do now and they still defend him. It has been clear what his positions have been and his history as a scientist. I have read numerous accounts of his past. You are wrong about the skeptics knowledge of him.
So greggie, the two heat sources facing each other radiate around each other? Don’t answer that. It would just prolong a useless discussion. You are a pinhead. Surely, the Koch bros. ain’t paying you. Maybe it’s the IPCC.
@GH: Back radiation can not heat the source of radiation
To believe that is to believe that back pressure in a muffler cannot increase the pressure in an exhaust manifold. Or that back EMF in an inductor cannot increase the voltage in the source of voltage.
That said, I’m sympathetic to the idea that back anything is a tricky concept conceptually. For this reason I prefer to explain the greenhouse effect as a decrease in the total OLR leaving Earth, resulting in the retained heat raising the surface temperature. This explanation has two advantages over the back-radiation explanation: it is easier to calculate the amount of retained heat, and one does not get bogged down in arguments involving the second law of thermodynamics.
Dr. Pratt, you gave us a very elegant explanation of the GE back on the thread about your milikelvin quasi-bucktooth thingy. Please do it again, for those who are still wandering in the darkness of willful ignorance. You are a very fine teacher, doc.
Happy to oblige, Don.
Although the back-radiation explanation of the greenhouse effect is technically correct, it’s hard even for the experts to follow the details. A more straightforward explanation of it is in terms of heat permanently leaving Earth for outer space.
Imagine yourself as a tourist on one of Richard Branson’s trips to space, taking photos of the Earth using an infrared camera. Any glow you see from the surface represents radiation escaping directly from the ground to space without being captured along the way by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
But you’ll also see the atmosphere itself glowing. That is, some of the heat escapes from the atmosphere to space instead of from the surface.
Now imagine the greenhouse gases increasing. Think of it as a fog getting thicker. Less glow then comes from the surface and more from the atmosphere. In effect the fog is acting as a thermal insulator.
And as the fog continues to get thicker, where the glow seems to be coming from gets higher.
But higher is colder. Hence as it gets thicker it also gets dimmer because colder things radiate less.
Bottom line: the thicker the greenhouse fog the less heat leaves the Earth.
But this means that the Earth retains more heat and therefore gets hotter at the surface.
The hotter surface then heats the rest of the atmosphere, which now glows more. The lapse rate of roughly 10 °C/km means that when the surface increases by 0.1 °C, the atmosphere at an altitude of 1 km does too. And so does the atmosphere at higher alitudes. Lapse rate forces all parts of the atmosphere to heat by roughly the same amount.
The greenhouse gas fog then brightens up until it is as bright as before the greenhouse gases were added.
Earth is now once again radiating as much heat to space (in the form of Outgoing Longwave Radiation or OLR) as it is receiving from the Sun (in the form of Shortwave Radiation or SR). That is, it has returned to equilibrium.
This tendency of the Earth to heat up with increasing insulation until it is radiating as strongly as before is called the <b<Planck feedback because radiation increases with increasing temperature according to Planck’s Law.
The one thing left to explain is how one can see a glow both from the ground and the atmosphere at the same time. This is where frequency of the radiation enters, the “color” of the radiation if you will.
Certain frequencies are strongly blocked by the radiation. Those will appear at high altitudes. More weakly blocked frequencies will appear to be glowing at lower altitudes. The ones most weakly blocked will appear as the ground itself glowing.
The thicker the fog the less ground glow you’ll see, and the higher the glow will appear to be coming from, across all frequencies.
In equilibrium (same heat radiated to space as captured from the Sun) the glow will always look the same strength. What a thicker fog (more greenhouse gases) means is that that glow will appear to be coming from a greater height. It also means that the surface temperature will be higher, even though the heat lost to space is the same as when the fog was thinner and the surface was colder.
Happy to expand on this as needed.
@VP: Certain frequencies are strongly blocked by the radiation
—> “strongly blocked by the fog”
Vaughan old buddy – if you are going to explain baby physics to skydragons make an effort to get it right.
Greg House: Back radiation can not heat the source of radiation,
Who says it does? The sun heats the surface of the Earth, and the back radiation slows the rate of Earth surface cooling — thus producing a warming effect. A few writers deny that the back radiation even exists, hence my question. Your phrase “self-heating by own heat” is mischaracterising Bengtsson’s claim.
Gimo Skippy: Vaughan old buddy – if you are going to explain baby physics to skydragons make an effort to get it right.
so, …, what error did he make?
Sorry Matthew – I can’t take you as seriously as you take yourself.
Gimo Skippy: – I can’t take you as seriously as you take yourself.
so share your insights with the other readers. What errors did you find in Vaughan Pratt’s post?
What is true by lamplight is not always true in sunlight.
<i<Matthew R Marler says: (Greg House: "Back radiation can not heat the source of radiation") Who says it does?
====================================
The IPCC says, as I said.
You need to read the parts of their reports where they describe their “greenhouse effect”. Page 58 in the 2nd report and this in the 4th report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html. Look carefully at the picture: the earth surface gets back radiation from “greenhouse gases”, twice as much as it can primarily radiate to the “greenhouse gases”! The guys knew, of course, that they needed a more powerful flux to get their warming. In my humble opinion, this is the most successful scientific fraud ever, given it is so obvious.
That’s good, doc. Not as elegant as the other, but more detailed and easier for the mopes to understand. Except you will have to explain to them how adding only a few hundred parts per million can result in sufficient opacity to make a significant difference. That’s probably skippy’s problem. but he’s afraid to say it.
Greg House: Look carefully at the picture: the earth surface gets back radiation from “greenhouse gases”, twice as much as it can primarily radiate to the “greenhouse gases”!
That is counter-intuitive, and it comes mostly from measurements. And it is the mean of fluxes averaged over the Earth surface, where the Equator has net warming and the poles have net cooling. Nevertheless, the heat to warm the surface comes from the sun, and the net effect of the back radiation is to slow the rate of radiative cooling.
Matt, ask the little dragonites if water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
@DM: you will have to explain to them how adding only a few hundred parts per million can result in sufficient opacity to make a significant difference.
You can get a rough idea of the heat-trapping efficacy of the atmosphere’s CO2 by asking how it would behave if frozen to dry ice.
Each square centimeter of the Earth’s surface has a kilogram of air above it. One part per thousand would therefore be a gram, except that CO2 is about 44/29 times as heavy as air. Hence at 1000 ppmv the CO2 above each square cm weighs around 1.5 g. But this is the density of dry ice. So if you froze the atmosphere’s CO2 at 1000 ppmv it would be one centimeter thick across the whole of the Earth’s surface.
Curently it’s at 400 ppmv, so it would be 4 mm thick.
Dry ice is roughly as opaque as glass to infrared. You can then ask how good an insulator a 4 mm thick sheet of glass would be. That much can easily catch enough heat to add considerably to the surface temperature.
The dry ice picture is only approximate. CO2 as a gas absorbs at spectral lines, namely at frequency bands each about 2.3 GHz wide, with lots of gaps in between. At high pressure these lines broaden to many GHz (pressure broadening), and when frozen to dry ice they broaden further still to fill in the gaps. So whereas solid dry ice blocks a major part of the spectrum in much the same way as solid glass (and for much the same reason, namely molecules in constant and intimate contact), CO2 as a gas leaves lots of gaps in the spectrum that radiant heat can escape through.
However the spectral lines vary greatly in strength, and each doubling of CO2 brings another hundred or so lines up to the level where they can do a good job of blocking radiation. This process of “activating” another hundred lines at each doubling continues well beyond 10,000 ppmv CO2 or even 100,000 ppmv (10%), so there is no shortage of lines to keep blocking more of the spectrum with each doubling, contrary to the popular impression that CO2’s blocking power is now largely saturated.
What I called “activation” is not an abrupt transition but rather a gradual strengthening in the effect of a line, going from allowing more than 90% through (effectively “open”) to less than 10% through (“closed”). While there is little variation in blocking power among the open lines, and likewise among the closed lines, during the transition from open to closed the blocking power of a line increases relatively quickly, during a period on the order of only a few decades at the present rate of increase of CO2. Historically CO2 has changed much more slowly, and each line may take many centuries or millennia to close (or open in the case of decreasing CO2).
Painful as this is for Dr. Bengtsson his ordeal his been politically essential. While Climategate exposed the climate bullies, MSM attempted to run interference at the time by minimizing the revelations and harping on about the bogus “inquiries”. The warmsters escaped a bit bruised but not seriously wounded. The Manns and Rohms of the world were able to continue dissembling and smearing the reputations of decent scientists like our hostess.
This round, the warmsters have been caught dead to rights bullying a distinguished, elderly scientist. It has hit the front pages of major UK papers.
Little wonder the warmster trolls are out in force. The mask has slipped and the bully boy tactics of the warmsters have been revealed for all to see. This is not about science, it is about motivated muggings in the back corridors of the scientific press.
What the warmsters have not realized is that skeptics now have both science and world class invective on their side: it would take 97 Joe Rolms to hold Mark Steyn’s cape. A hundred John Cooks to match a single blog post from Andrew Bolt. Better still, the warmster enablers in the MSM are tired and disheartened. You can tell because so few MSM warmster stories allow comments any more. They can’t allow the comments because the warmster journalists consistently have their heads handed to them by their readers.
The warmster hysteria is being destroyed scientifically and socially; the policy and politics will follow.
Jay Currie says: “This round, the warmsters have been caught dead to rights bullying a distinguished, elderly scientist.”
=================================
Except this “distinguished, elderly scientist” is a warmster.
When they bully Skeptics, no one cares.
When they bully a Warmster, suddenly, a lot of people care.
We need to deal with this while it has “world wide” attention that
What happened to Bengtsson is the same thing that happens in the US to a black person who becomes conservative/Republican–they are called an Uncle Tom, sock puppet, house N__, turncoat, because it is firmly held that all blacks must support the Democrats, and traitors must be shamed. It is actually believed that a black person is incapable of becoming a Republican unless paid to do so (pretty insulting belief if you ask me). Likewise, if you become a sceptic you either must be a paid shill or be crazy.
Excellent analogy Craig.
Agreed, bang on.
It is assumed that a normal, sane black person just can’t be a Republican.
Michael Mann suggested that an investigative journalist should be hired to investigate Steve McIntyre’s shady past and copious Big Oil funding. In Mann’s warped mind Steve M. absolutely HAD TO HAVE connections to ‘dirty’ money – they just hadn’t been identified yet.
For 5 years I shared a house with a guy who was a drug and alcohol abuse. When we met his license was suspended and his only transportation was a bike someone gave him. During the time I lived with him he turned his life around, abstained from drugs and drink, started his own business and owned several vehicles one or more of which were always Mercedes. Politically we were opposites. Skin color was just as opposite. But we both were DC guys and both took people at face value. I always found it funny when each year at tax time he told me he considered becoming a Republican.
@CL: It is actually believed that a black person is incapable of becoming a Republican unless paid to do so
I would be fascinated to meet someone who seriously believes that Booker T. Washington, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, etc. etc. were liberals who had to be paid to become Republicans. I would also be fascinated to meet any member of Insight America, Republicans for Black Empowerment, Congress of Racial Equality, American Civil Rights Institute, Project 21, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, or National Black Republican Association who did not consider your accusation racist.
You are a brilliant guy, doc. But you have missed the plot, on this one. Craig has gone a little hyperbolic, but his story is essentially correct. And you won’t find two black Republicans who would call it racist. I know plenty of black Republicans. All 47, as a matter of fact.
You misunderstood me, Don. I didn’t deny they existed, I just said I’d be fascinated to meet them. So far I’ve never met one, so I’ve never had the opportunity to be brought up to speed by such a person on their general outlook on society. Telling me they exist doesn’t help me any.
@Don: All 47, as a matter of fact.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood you, but are saying that on average each of the seven conservative black societies I mentioned has fewer than seven members?
Vaughan.
Sorry to jump in but I think the essence of their points is that Democrats can’t conceive of how any black could be a Conservative or a Republican and if they are, they are demonized and the name calling begins. I see this attitude on behalf of the Democrats every day.
Sorry to jump in
I’m even sorrier that I jumped in. ;)
but I think the essence of their points is that Democrats can’t conceive of how any black could be a Conservative or a Republican
That was clear (assuming they were limiting their assessment to white Democrats).
My impression of American politics is that Democrats have just as low an opinion of Republican beliefs about other races as vice versa.
Here’s the way it looks to me though it’s not an in depth look at the situation. 501(c)(3)s non-profits can in a limited way lobby. There are limitations on Permissible Lobbying. The IRS uses a changing rate comparing normal expenditures to lobbying expenditures. Simplifying that table we can say that 5% can be spent on lobbying up to a $1,000,000.00 total of lobbying expenditures. The table starts out with a 20% number which is higher, but quickly moves down to 5% so that 3/4s of the run to the $1,000,000.00 limit is done at the 5% rate. None of this is to say that sometimes we see expenditures for things such as outreach and education. Terms that can be subjective and might overlap with advocacy. The education might be about trees. And I think we can see how a mention of climate change might find its way into the learning. My point might be that a 501(c)(3) can, with caution, be wrapped around many types of organizations with differing goals and objectives.
Great post Judith. You are one courageous lady.
Joshua, you need to get a life!
willard,
Maybe its the nature of twitter feeds but read over his comments and decide for yourself.
To be honest, I have no idea what he’s been up to.
The GWPF vs Michael Mann: the Twitter-Match
• The GWPF: 5,588 tweets, 1,716 followers
• Michael Mann: 17,700 tweets, 18,800 followers
Verdict Follower-wise, it’s Mann over GWPF by a 10X1 knock-out!
Question Did the GWPF recruit Lennart Bengtsson to boost its sagging Twitter numbers? Did Bengtsson realize this, and rescind his membership?
Note James Hansen and Naomi Oreskes apparently do not have (or need) Twitter accounts.
Perhaps strong science doesn’t need Twitter?
Conclusion Ideology-driven denialism (GWPF) and fragile scientific egos (Mann) rely on Twitter.
Strong science (Hansen and Oreskes), not so much!
I don’t think even FAN understands his point anymore.
Justin Bieber: 26,861 Tweets, 126,000 followers
How much weight does that give to his opinion? Zip
Note: Schitzree also does not have (or need) a twitter account.
FOMT, could you be any more shallow than to judge people and organizations by their Twitter numbers??
If the numbers were reversed, which is always possible in such an ephemeral activity as Twitter, would you then accept that number of Twitter followers implied something profound about weaknesses of the Alarmist case and strength of GWPF dissent?
HA, I didn’t think so….
Thanks for the link to Mann’s twitter feeds. I don’t use twitter and had no idea Mann had turned into a raving zealot.
I thought Denizens thought Mike was a raving zealot at least since he could grow a goatee, John McLure.
Do you think there was a defining moment for Mike to become a raving zealot?
The goatee might be a big tell.
willard,
Maybe its the nature of twitter feeds but read over his comments and decide for yourself.
To be honest, I have no idea what he’s been up to.
And the kardassians have millions. Which just goes to prove the more twits you have following you, the lower your IQ.
Dr. Curry,
I suspect that this not the first time a scientist is ostracized, as you have been. It is chilling to consider that a person of your spectacular talents and communication skills has been frozen out of positions such as Dean, Provost, and other higher administrative roles. This makes your fidelity to your conscience all the more admirable.
As Kate at Small Dead Animals said “What is the opposite of diversity? University!” http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/020186.html It may well be the case that the Federally funded, University based research mechanism has run its course. It is far too easily captured, as are journal editorial boards, by groups of like minded colleagues that unmindfully accept each others’ articles and grant applications.
This is not the first time science goes off the rails by interacting with politics, as you well know. And for those who think this too shall pass, let’s take a moment to remember Trofim Lysenko and the devastation he wrought upon Russian Science. Lysenko is a far better analog for what is happening to Dr. Curry, Dr. Pielke, and others, and for what may have happened to Dr. George V. Mann after he famously challenged the cholesterol orthodoxy in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1977. His light utterly disappeared under a bushel, and I have never known whether he was old and tired (~60 at the time), or he was frozen out of NIH grants… Unfortunately, George died last July, at 95, and we will never know for sure. That’s too bad, because if he had made it to 96, he would have enjoyed his utterly complete vindication about the benignity of fats and meats.
You didn’t mention this, but I would hazard a guess that you too are finding grants difficult to come by?
You are a real mensch, Dr. Curry, keep up the good fight.
There is no question that Dr. Curry, with her impressive career and accomplishments, should be an eminent candidate for academic Provost and Presidency positions, should she care to go in that direction (but we’re all lucky here that she hasn’t, thus far).
The biases and hostility of an academic world which demands litmus tests of political correctness is one of the great follies of the age.
Global warming alarmists talk about a ‘consensus’ when what they mean is a majority… of Democrat party voters. We’ve seen the polls and how believers and skeptics sort out along the political divide.
Essentially, we have a majority of Democrat voters who are comfortable with their level of ignorance and are willing confer superior knowledge on global warming experts. And, the self-styled ‘experts’ do mind looking incompetent to non-Democrat voters.
That leaves a minority of the population comprised of non-Democrat voters — most of whom are rightfully skeptical. This minority believes they’re forced to pay the salaries of those in the government-education special interest group, despite the fact they are betraying science and committing treason against reason and country.
The idea that peer review is imperfect but it the best way possible to decide science is nonsense. There have been multiple studies and multiple presented well researched alternatives. I hate it when intelligent people make stupid defences of systems that have hurt them. Scientists are human beings and no more or less corrupt than any other group of human beings. Judith I know exactly what you mean about committees and invitations and the subtle blocks to promotions. This exists because there is no protection in peer review that permits errors or mavericks. Peer reviews kills it. You make a single misstep and fall out of the beat and you are gone. The number of positions available to those who want to be scientists is far far less than the number of people who want them. The fierce competition means you can fall off the track for the stupidest reasons. Competition is so fierce that a committee might have a half a dozen excellent candidates so they pick one who is not only excellent but also will get along in the lunch room when politics comes up. Peer review, especially anonymous peer review, means anyone on the ladder with you can easily give you a shove off and use you to climb over on the way up. This can be accomplished without you even know who hit you. This can and is done with or without the science you do being taken into consideration. I know for a fact that I was turned down for an academic job due to my being an avowed Zionist and Israel supporter even though my scientific work has nothing to do with my politics. The same kind of shoving off the ladder and stomping on affects a variety of people. Conservatives and Republicans get short shrift in science. Those with deeply held religious beliefs of any sort better stay silent about them or they get stomped on. Being older than ideal, female, being married to the wrong person, of an ethnic group that is deemed undesirable, having English as a second language, having a health issue, having a baby, any number of totally irrelevant facts can become exclusions. What is happening with climate science is not new. The history of science shows this kind of political interference in science, and more disturbingly, the willingness of so many who call themselves scientists to bend to the political pressure, whether out of fear or ambition, has been a constant part of science for at least the last 500 years. Through the history of science there have always been a few who place personal integrity and truth in the face of nature before being politically correct. In the end they are the ones science remembers and honours. Let’s not forget Galileo being forced to renounce his own work, or Pasteur being denied access to the formal chemistry society of scientists in his home country. Einstein had to work in a patent office to eat. The best science happens IN SPITE of the system and IN SPITE of the universities because of the minority of scientists who place their measure of self worth, their success, their reputations, and their livelihood on what nature presents and on nothing else. So I think Judith, you can count yourself among the greats of science and the minority of real scientists in the field because your alter is nature not peer review. I am an unemployed scientist who failed within the university system mostly but I know in my heart and with every part of my rational mind, that this failure is not due to the quality of my science.
You are entirely correct, Natalie Gordon. This has been true for centuries, and the deleterious psychological effects of the resulting stresses — even on the survivors — are soberingly well-documented on the web-page Founders of thermodynamics and suicide.
Conclusion Scientists, mathematicians, engineers, physicians, and entrepreneurs who achieve at the highest level commonly are gifted — or have cultivated in themselves — exceptional mental resiliency (aka “toughness”), determination, and risk aptitude. The reason is simple: they need it.
Observation Poetry, writing, dance, painting, sculpting, inventing — all of the creative arts, in fact — are no different.
I sent your blog to my wife for parsing.
Do you know what a paragraph break is? I love your discourse. I mean, I really like it.So i will lovingly insert para breaks for you so the many separate but worthwhile concepts are appropriately set off.
The idea that peer review is imperfect but it the best way possible to decide science is nonsense. There have been multiple studies and multiple presented well researched alternatives. I hate it when intelligent people make stupid defences of systems that have hurt them. Scientists are human beings and no more or less corrupt than any other group of human beings.
Judith I know exactly what you mean about committees and invitations and the subtle blocks to promotions. This exists because there is no protection in peer review that permits errors or mavericks. Peer reviews kills it. You make a single misstep and fall out of the beat and you are gone.
The number of positions available to those who want to be scientists is far far less than the number of people who want them. The fierce competition means you can fall off the track for the stupidest reasons. Competition is so fierce that a committee might have a half a dozen excellent candidates so they pick one who is not only excellent but also will get along in the lunch room when politics comes up.
Peer review, especially anonymous peer review, means anyone on the ladder with you can easily give you a shove off and use you to climb over on the way up. This can be accomplished without you even know who hit you. This can and is done with or without the science you do being taken into consideration.
I know for a fact that I was turned down for an academic job due to my being an avowed Zionist and Israel supporter even though my scientific work has nothing to do with my politics. The same kind of shoving off the ladder and stomping on affects a variety of people. Conservatives and Republicans get short shrift in science. Those with deeply held religious beliefs of any sort better stay silent about them or they get stomped on. Being older than ideal, female, being married to the wrong person, of an ethnic group that is deemed undesirable, having English as a second language, having a health issue, having a baby, any number of totally irrelevant facts can become exclusions.
What is happening with climate science is not new. The history of science shows this kind of political interference in science, and more disturbingly, the willingness of so many who call themselves scientists to bend to the political pressure, whether out of fear or ambition, has been a constant part of science for at least the last 500 years. Through the history of science there have always been a few who place personal integrity and truth in the face of nature before being politically correct. In the end they are the ones science remembers and honours. Let’s not forget Galileo being forced to renounce his own work, or Pasteur being denied access to the formal chemistry society of scientists in his home country. Einstein had to work in a patent office to eat. The best science happens IN SPITE of the system and IN SPITE of the universities because of the minority of scientists who place their measure of self worth, their success, their reputations, and their livelihood on what nature presents and on nothing else.
So I think Judith, you can count yourself among the greats of science and the minority of real scientists in the field because your alter is nature not peer review. I am an unemployed scientist who failed within the university system mostly but I know in my heart and with every part of my rational mind, that this failure is not due to the quality of my science.
There is a high degree of hypocrisy here, whereby employees of green advocacy groups can participate as authors of the IPCC reports (without apparent criticism), but a non-advocate scientist cannot participate in a (non-green) think tank without censure from scientist colleagues. Scientists should be judged for the arguments and the integrity of their behavior, and should not be censured over who they choose to talk to.
Some years ago I wrote some posts at Real Climate. During this time some of the regulars referred to “Tea Party members” as “tea baggers” (a well-understood slur) several times, and I wrote to object. My objection was stifled. In a separate post on a different thread I cited a Science review article (authors, title, volume, pp etc; and a direct quote) on the indeterminacy of the cloud response to climate warming, and that comment was stifled. I “perceive” Real Climate and Gavin Schmidt to be “acting in bad faith”. I do not “perceive” them as having any superiority over GWPF. I mean, as long as we are talking about “perceptions” of “bad faith”.
Matthew, I don’t understand your complaint. RealClimate was constituted by a group of climate scientists in 2004 not as a forum for debate but to keep the public up to date on the scientific consensus on global warming.
Writers like Michael Crichton can theorize all they like about how consensus is irrelevant to science and only reproducible results count. Speaking as a scientist myself (though not a climate scientist), that’s nuts. Without consensus there is no way to reliably evaluate whether a result is reproducible: science would reduce to a shouting match and get nowhere.
For those who wish to question or debate the consensus there are blogs for that purpose. Climate Etc. is one of them, so it makes good sense that you’re raising your concerns here.
I would never consider contributing to RealClimate (and I never have) because I’m not a climate scientist and therefore am not qualified to speak for that community or to represent what it perceives as the consensus of climate science. The first communication I ever had with Gavin Schmidt was when he complained to me about something I’d written on Climate Etc, which turned out to be easily cleared up to our mutual satisfaction.
“Without consensus there is no way to reliably evaluate whether a result is reproducible: science would reduce to a shouting match and get nowhere.”
Scientist A conducts an experiment and publishes a positive result. Scientists B, C and D each independently reproduce the experiment as published and get no positive result. In their research they document several errors and incorrect assumptions by Scientist A.
It seems to me that the three latter scientists have a good argument that the first experiment was not reproducible, even if a poll of scientists shows 97% agree with scientist A..
And by the way, how has the climate science consensus done as far as avoiding a shouting match?
You don’t have to be a climate scientist to participate at realclimate, doc. You just have to be a sycophant. Have you ever actually looked at what goes on there? You’ve got your head up your butt, doc.
@GM: And by the way, how has the climate science consensus done as far as avoiding a shouting match?
Science is never settled, whether it be physics, chemistry, climate, geology, etc.. Even within the field there is room for debate. But is that what you’re referring to, or are you referring to the shouting done by those outside the field in question? Those are very different things.
@DM: You just have to be a sycophant.
Don, stop thinking of RealClimate as Climate Etc. and start thinking of it as a classroom with an instructor (or in their case a bunch of around ten instructors).
In pretty much every classroom in the world where the instructor is trying to teach something, what alternative to being a “sycophant” are you proposing for the students?
How do you propose to distinguish between a non-sycophant and a disruptive influence?
@Vaughan Pratt – This is one of those “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments. If you are talking a primary school, then the students are supposed to be empty headed sycophants. However if you are talking higher education, the students are supposed to start questioning and challenging the teachers.
So for your analogy to be correct, one must look at RC as a first grade classroom, not a college classroom. And in that case, you are correct. Those participating at RC are first graders.
Vaughan Pratt: Matthew, I don’t understand your complaint.
It’s a play on “perception” of “bad faith” used by Gavin Schmidt in his tweet. Possibly passive-aggressive (see a response to me on the earlier thread.) I think that Schmidt accusing GWPF of “bad faith” is baseless, but the “perception” issue is really scurrilous.
Vaughan Pratt: and start thinking of it as a classroom with an instructor (or in their case a bunch of around ten instructors).
No. Don’t.
“tea baggers” was not the only insult they directed at people whose policies they disagreed with. Think of them more as a bunch of left-wing and center-left editorial writers. It’s not that you can’t learn any climate science by reading Real Climate, but you can’t get a very good development of unanswered questions of great import. I do praise Chris Colose for recommending some good books that I have read large selections of, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert who once acknowledged that something I said was unknown was actually unknown. Most of my references to unanswered questions (citing research) were buried — this became a clue to me that the answers to the questions were not known. I used the cloud cover example already, and there were some others.
@MM: I think that Schmidt accusing GWPF of “bad faith” is baseless
I have to agree with you there. Even if his accusation is true, his basis for it is purely speculative.
Each side of the climate debate is so convinced that all the evidence proves that they’re obviously right, that they’re certain the other side must be acting in bad faith.
This sort of rush to judgment is counterproductive.
@MM: No. Don’t.
By all means propose a workable alternative. Just don’t expect them to adopt it unless it’s clearly an improvement on the status quo. Given their stated remit I can’t imagine what that could be.
Vaughan Pratt:
Never a truer word was spoken.
Which is exactly why we need arbiters.
People end up going to war because they fail to acknowledge this particular human failing.
Well, no. Skeptics(they are all the same) are not so convinced that all the evidence proves that they’re obviously right. Yet, nonetheless, skeptics(all of them) seem able to identify bad faith. Maybe the source of belief in bad faith is something else, like maybe demonstrable bad faith.
================
Corollary: Bad faith from the consensus side suggests they are wrong.
=======
Didn’t Gavin recently publish a paper comparing models to observations?
noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/just-in-fletch-outed-as-anonymous-reviewer-in-environmental-research-letters/
I am sorry to say that I suspect you of being disingenuous, doc. I don’t believe you would conduct a classroom in which you allow sycophants to shout down, ridicule and censor those who ask inconvenient questions. And you know that the theme of realclimate is that the science is settled. It’s essentially a platform for propaganda, plain and simple. That’s why you don’t hang there.
Vaughan Pratt: By all means propose a workable alternative.
They could discuss the evidence on all the issues about which there is ignorance, uncertainty and debate, such as the cloud cover problem. That would be more like an educational institution. They have discussed the European CLOUD experiment and its relation to the Svensmark hypothesis, but it is a tiny part of the whole story.
Just don’t expect them to adopt it unless it’s clearly an improvement on the status quo.
I think that would clearly be an improvement, but with their comments about “false balance” and such, I doubt that they would think it an improvement.
Given their stated remit I can’t imagine what that could be.
Is their remit really to suppress discussion of difficult topics and advocate increased government control? (I have not mentioned the clear statist bias of their regular contributors, but I think there is one.) It might be, but I don’t think they really see it that way. “Educating the public” does not have to entail suppressing discussion of the evidence on disputed points. And their remit does not require them to slur the voters with whom they disagree about tax policy.
@DM: I don’t believe you would conduct a classroom in which you allow sycophants to shout down, ridicule and censor those who ask inconvenient questions.
In your case, Don, I’d ask you whether you felt that ridiculing your fellow students was productive. Hopefully you would say no, in which case I’d ask you what remedy would be most effective if you continued to do so.
I have guests coming today, so I don’t have time to play games. You wouldn’t allow me, or anybody else, to do in your classroom what the realclimate sycophants do to anyone who doesn’t toe the science-is-settled alarmist party line. End of story.
@MM: Is their remit really to suppress discussion of difficult topics and advocate increased government control?
I’m hardly a reliable source about how RC operates, JCH would be a better source since he posts there. My understanding of RC is based partly on occasional visits to the site and to a considerable extent on a talk several of its convenors gave at a recent AGU fall meeting where they spent an hour explaining the history and philosophy of the site.
One aspect of RC that is easily overlooked is that it is operated by climate scientists for the purpose of communicating climate science to the public. If the convenors were an even mix of climate scientists and economists then it would be reasonable to expect the subject matter to be an even mix of what the scientists understand about the science to date and what the economists consider might be feasible mitigation options. But since their expertise is confined to climate science they would be exceeding their remit to venture too far outside their expertise.
This is not to say that mitigation options aren’t discussed. However the current thread at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/05/unforced-variations-may-2014/comment-page-1/#comments
is in the spirit of one of CE’s “open-thread-weekends” and starts out “This month’s open thread. In order to give everyone a break, no discussion of mitigation options this month – that has been done to death in previous threads. Anything related to climate science is totally fine: Carbon dioxide levels maybe, or TED talks perhaps…”
I find their reluctance to let the discussion drift out of their area of expertise quite understandable, and their request to avoid doing so perfectly reasonable.
How rigorously do they police what they request? Judging by the 180 comments to date they appear to be letting at least some comments about mitigation stand. Read them and draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion about RC? Demonstrable bad faith. Heh, it’s what’s got them their rep.
==========
Let us just assume, as part of a delicate joke, that the 97% figure for the alarmist consensus view of the future is correct. That means that one or several of the 3% with different, and widely varying, views of the future are far more likely to be more accurately predictive.
No joke!
========
The RC covernors of the phony climate consensus orthodoxy have very likely lost more inquiring souls to demonic denialism, than they have attracted to the alarmist dogma.
The RC coven of covenors keep the covenant among the already faithful sychophants, but they ain’t corralling any conscious converts.
It seems to me that the three latter scientists have a good argument that the first experiment was not reproducible, even if a poll of scientists shows 97% agree with scientist A..
(Sorry, should have responded to this earlier.)
I think Max Planck said it best. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
If you feel that science is remiss in allowing such a situation to persist, you might consider what you could do to reform it.
But bear in mind that science is far from simple, see
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
First, science makes certain assumptions:
# The World Is Understandable
# Scientific Ideas Are Subject To Change
# Scientific Knowledge Is Durable
# Science Cannot Provide Complete Answers to All Questions
Second, the practice of science observes certain ideals:
# Science Demands Evidence
# Science Is a Blend of Logic and Imagination
# Science Explains and Predicts
# Scientists Try to Identify and Avoid Bias
# Science Is Not Authoritarian
Third, science is not practiced in a social vacuum:
# Science Is a Complex Social Activity
# Science Is Organized Into Content Disciplines and Is Conducted in Various Institutions
# There Are Generally Accepted Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Science
# Scientists Participate in Public Affairs Both as Specialists and as Citizens
If reforming science within these constraints starts to sound daunting, you may find it simpler to go along with Planck.
Hi Vaughan, thanks much for this link, I like it
‘The essence of science is validation by observation. But it is not enough for scientific theories to fit only the observations that are already known. Theories should also fit additional observations that were not used in formulating the theories in the first place; that is, theories should have predictive power.’
I argue for replacing consensus with prediction. Now who did get it right?
I just stumbled across it today, Judy, and wondered how such a comprehensive analysis of the nature of science could have been produced by an organization I’d never heard of. Turns out Project 2061 was founded in 1985 by F. James Rutherford, then Executive Director of the Education Division of the AAAS, a post he kept from 1981 to 1998. He named it for the next return of Halley’s comet in 2061, with the immediate goal of educating America’s youth in time for the imminent 1986 visit.
In 2004 Project 2061 began a quarterly electronic newsletter,
http://www.project2061.org/publications/2061Connections/default.htm
Today the project is directed by Jo Ellen Roseman with a staff of seven including three PhD’s.
The project is so low profile however that it has remained below Wikipedia’s radar throughout the ten years of the latter’s existence. Now that’s it gotten a mention on CE it will be interesting to see how many days before Wikipedia has an article on it.
Perhaps I should do more quoting?
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/16/reflections-on-bengtsson-and-the-gwpf/#comment-557463
Vaughan,
here is a typical example of how RealClimate operates.
A couple days ago Gavin makes a comment about newspaper stories from the past posted by Steve Goddard to the effect that media tended to exaggerate back then.
My comment about how they still do, referencing the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse stories, was moderated out of existence.
Integrity – a foreign concept at Real Climate.
““This is the real story here: why certain climate scientists believe it’s their role to pass public judgement on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or a campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’. ” – Mike Hulme”
Yeah scientists should be free to be activists.
That’s what this blog has always been supportive of…
Very interesting CLimate Etc. Thankyou.
I think the main source of all this “confusion” is that the majority of active climate scientists are doing science to influence policy. The irony being that unless there is an equal amount of effort to challenge the orthodox view, rather than just support it, then it actually isn’t science at all.
Besides scientific analysis and verification, the issue of “good faith” is vital when assessing those putting forward information as a basis for public policy. rabbit said earlier: “The trouble with the “good faith” test is that it presumes we can determine people’s true motivations. We can’t, of course.”
I strongly disagree with that. In our daily lives, we constantly assess the good faith of those we interact with or wish to sell us something, including policies. Unless we are hermits, we need to develop this skill highly to deal with the world. Australia’s last two Prime Ministers suffered greatly from loss of good faith, and the current one is also having a problem with it. This seems to be afar more of an issue in climate science than other sciences, one reason for being sceptical about whatever one is told.
Thanks again Dr Curry for another measured and interesting post. Although it may be an effective label for fighting back, McCarthyism doesn’t seem an historically accurate label. As I remember it, Senator McCarthy smeared people left and right to advance his career with little or no benefit to US security. His attack was a witch hunt. True, like many of the defenders of climate orthodoxy, he appeared to ‘have no shame’ and bullied anyone who demanded their rights, but his was an active persecution, not a reactionary one.
What is on display is more thuggery – knocking people into line to protect one’s income and power. I used to think that these kinds of responses were self-organizing and needed no ‘conspiracy’ to explain, but after reading Lindzen’s (2012) updated essay “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?” the other day, I wonder.
Richard Lindzen writes on Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence
Do note the date. Question: Is the intimidation worse now or seven years ago?
===========
Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder. Criticism of your friends by your enemies is intimidation. Your friends’ criticism of your enemies is not intimidation but justified outrage.
I would add “never mind who’s right” except that it’s invariably your friends who are right, whoever you may be and whichever side you’re on. How often have you seen the reverse?
Those who are too thin-skinned to stick to their guns in the face of intimidation, ridicule, etc. may not be cut out for a career in a field that subjects them to more of this than they can tolerate. They should let their thicker-skinned colleagues stand up for their beliefs and switch to a less controversial research area. Let natural selection do its job.
I’ve heard less clear answers from professors in many classrooms.
=================
Heh, you poor fool. This may well be an act of great honor and restraint rather than cowardice or timidity. He can name names, you know. But I don’t think he has to do so. They name themselves.
=========
““The real tragedy here is that climate scientists are now expected to check their comments in an anonymous peer review to ask themselves how they might ‘play’ if repeated in the Times or the Mail. The progress of science since Galileo has depended on the principle that an anonymous graduate student can point out errors in a paper by a Nobel laureate confident that their comments will be used solely for the purposes of editorial judgement.
“The peer review system has its faults, of course: good papers get rejected, bad papers accepted, and reviewers have their prejudices which editors have to take into account. But overall, it has served us well, and there is a lot more than climate science at stake if we allow it to be undermined by forcing scientists to consult their lawyers before recommending that a paper is rejected.””
Prof Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford
Actually, it is that one (so far) negative reviewer now published who DOES show concern for the media/public impact of the Bengtsson paper….. however accurate the Bengtsson paper may be (and the reviewer is proving to be incompetent, see latest thread at Bishop Hill), the reviewer’s chief concern is that it could “give fodder to the skeptics” as the old Climategate saying goes….
So much for the pure pursuit of scientific knowledge, unsullied by concerns about news media and the great unwashed.
Re ‘good faith’ – while it was interesting to see ‘Good’ Queen Bess quoted about ‘windows into mens’ souls’, it should be remembered that Elizabeth I had lots of heads loped off and heretics burned. I agree with comments by Steve Mosher, Matthew Marler, Faustino and probably others that we can infer the intentions of the Schmidts, Manns etc and they are not good.
” As a result of smearings by Romm, Mann, et al., I am excluded”
How do you know it is a result of those “smearings”? And not just people acting on their individual judgments and opinions?
The problem with McCarthy wasn’t that he said bad things about people. It was that he invoked the coercive power of the state.
Based upon conversations with individuals involved in those decisions, even though the individuals supported me.
So those individuals told you that they acted in the ways that they did (excluding you from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, refusing to collaborate with you, etc.) because of what Romm and Mann have said about you?
Really, they said that they supported you, but that they wouldn’t act on their support because of what Romm or Mann have said about you?
Or are you saying that they wouldn’t act on their support because they were afraid of retaliation from Romm and/or Mann?
uhhh, WOW, Joshua, your question is confused…. if you knew anything about the academic world you would realize that these kinds of decisions are usually group and committee based and/or issuing from teams of senior faculty and/or administrators, so one person’s support cannot (generally) override fervent opposition, such as that based upon readings of smears by Romm, Mann et al. Someone can tell Judith they supported her in such a process (and would hardly bother talking to her unless they wanted to convey such support), but this does not imply that the person talking to Judith is the person swayed by such smears. What were you thinking?
Only Judith can confirm if she meant something like this, but your version of Judith’s remark is worse than silly.
Here’s nicky, Defender of the Indefensible and mouthpiece for the alarmist cabal. We can’t see if you have your cheap lawyer suit on today, nicky. Is joshie your new aide?
Skiphil –
I am not unfamiliar with the review process, actually. But your interpretation may well be correct. Yes, I found her statement confusing, and that is why I asked for clarification.
So, Judith – is Skiphil correct? You were told by some that you were rejected by a majority on the basis of Romm’s and Mann’s smears, and not based on an assessment of your academic and scientific output?
Romm and Mann weren’t mentioned specifically by these individuals, but if you google ‘Judith Curry’ you will get the picture – in any event, all this was set into play by Romm, Mann et al.
Judith usually ignores questions from lame little anklebiters, joshie. But there’s always hope.
Judith, this was not set in play by Romm, Mann, et al. The strategy was put in place earlier and is based on Oreskes’ work.It include refusal to debate, pressure on the media, an intense media campaign and a concerted effort to keep the opposition not only shut out of the scientific literature (shown in the Climategate emails), but out of the public discussion (as in the ‘false balance’ nonsense).
Romm and Mann are certainly enthusiastic embracers of this strategy, but it predates them.
Romm was the first to call me out, personally
So some told you that you were rejected as a candidate by others because of what was started by Romm and Mann?
How did your informants know that the rejection wasn’t based on an views of the quality of your scientific and academic output, but merely on the basis of “smears” started by Romm and Mann?
Is that what was said by those who rejected your candidacy? Or did they say that they felt that your scientific and academic output was subpar, and your informants just deduced that what they really meant was that they were rejecting your candidacy because of what Romm and Mann started?
Don’t you reserve the right, as a scientist and academic, to judge the scientific output of other scientists and academics? Are your judgements of the work of others made on the basis of the smears of Watts or Morano, or do you base your judgements on your assessment of the intrinsic value of people’s work?
The most interesting feedback was from a head hunter company, who thinks I look fabulous on paper but the search committee couldn’t get past the internet baggage. The headhunter company continues to push my c.v.– in any event, I haven’t been responding to recent opportunities.
Tom, I think that Judith is saying that the attacks on herself were put into play by Romm, Mann et al. She should sue their little nasty butts. Her denizens got the money. Mosher is rich.
The Koreans have a saying, Judith – on the order of “The nail that sticks up above the rest is the one that will be hit first with the hammer.”
That’s just a fact of life. Not to say that I think that you deserve all the kinds of criticism you have received, but we all choose our ways to deal with that reality. I would imagine that you have gained in some ways from your notoriety. It certainly has won you many adoring fans here at Climate Etc., who write their sweet missives to you on a regular basis. It has won you an army of white nights, ready to grab their lances (don’t go there, boyz) at a moment’s notice to defend you when they think that your honor has been questioned.
I would suggest that there are a number of ways that you could minimize the negative notoriety substantively w/o compromising your ideals or your science in the least. Just let me know if you’d like some suggestions. I’d put a smiley face there, but I think that they trip the filter.
Dr. Curry may never want to sue, but it’s always good to keep a journal and correspondence, just in case, dontchaknow.
oh thx, Willard, that does help, and I apologize for my misplaced sarcasm.
I don’t really like to lapse into the heat and hostility of the climate wars, and feel bad if I do.
Wow, Nick, that’s possibly the most heartless comment I’ve seen you write yet.
I generally appreciate the role you play in presenting the other side of the story, but seriously, that statement is just ignorant.
“Based upon conversations with individuals involved in those decisions, even though the individuals supported me.” – JC
Important to note that the same process lead to Judith getting her position of Chair.
That process now gives a different result.
Judith discovers she doesn’t like the process.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but when I hear “Judith Curry” and “Internet baggage”, I think “Climate Etc.” Donna Laframboise, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Mark Steyn, David Rose and WUWT.
Don’t believe me?
Google “Judith Curry”; Google agrees with me.
You would be hard-pressed to argue Joe Romm or Michael Mann have special prominence in the three million plus results.
Nick is on a tear challenging the impact of the actions of the hard core “consensus” scientists and their fellow travelers. I look forward to his response to Dr. Curry’s amplifying comments.
Nick?
Google: judith curry anti-science disinformer
Don Monfort | May 17, 2014 at 1:36 am |
Thank you for this demonstration of what the phrase “begs the question” means in a modern context.
So many people get it wrong.
Like irony.
You are playing the simpleton, barty. Judith has been smeared by powerful Team scientists. She has suffered for straying from the reservation. And she should kick your old moldy butt off of her blog for trying to make her out to be a liar. Are we clear now, you quibbling little runt?
Don Monfort | May 17, 2014 at 1:51 am |
Huh. So, according to you, smear is a bad thing?
And you don’t grasp the double standard of your position?
Then, truly, it is best we move on to a new topic, to sooner bury this increasingly toxic, inversion-plagued and blatantly hypocritical page.
Anyone for a brisk discussion of Arctic Sea Ice levels?
That’s usually popular around this time of year.
“It certainly has won you many adoring fans here at Climate Etc., who write their sweet missives to you on a regular basis. It has won you an army of white nights, ready to grab their lances (don’t go there, boyz) at a moment’s notice to defend you when they think that your honor has been questioned.
I would suggest that there are a number of ways that you could minimize the negative notoriety substantively w/o compromising your ideals or your science in the least. Just let me know if you’d like some suggestions. I’d put a smiley face there, but I think that they trip the filter.”
I have a life, Joshua, so I am unable to rebut your interminable comments in support of the indefensible. But your comment here and elsewhere is despicable. You have far more time than me, so your volume will overwhelm this comment. But let me assure you – you are a toad.
@ Nick Stokes | May 16, 2014 at 7:10 pm | Reply
The problem with McCarthy wasn’t that he said bad things about people. It was that he invoked the coercive power of the state.
*****
The state has every right to exercise power to keep enemies from infiltrating the government. And that was what McCarthy was doing. I think there should have been more due process. Also, getting Communists out of the government is difficult to do vis a vis the US Constitution. But, it needed to be done. We are living with the results of the covert Russian campaign embodied in Obama. He apologizes for our “sins,” like prisoners in a Korean concentration camp. It’s disgusting.
I’m having trouble putting what I’m thinking into precise words, but the above is close.
> I’m having trouble putting what I’m thinking into precise words, but the above is close.
How about “McCarthyism is wrong, but McCarthy was right”, jim2?
The increasing furor is getting to be comical.
I keep waiting for someone to tell Bengtsson to put his big boy pants on. No one has, so I will.
You want to see progressive vilification in practice?
Here’s a thought, be a woman conservative who has the audacity to accept her party’s nomination for vice president. Watch not only the vilifcation of the candidate, but the rabid attacks on her minor children.
Accept a nomination to the Supreme Court, as a black conservative.
Be a conservative commentator and write a condemnation of the fraudulent graphology of Michael Mann and get your self sued in an attempt to bankrupt you, and those like you, into silence.
Try to be a conservative in the Hollywood film industry.
Try to be a conservative and obtain (or keep) a teaching position in any large western university.
Be a Yale educated (caucasian) legal scholar and accept a nomination to the Supreme Court and have a new verb made of your name for the vulgar, lying, hateful attacks on you.
A lukewarmer long term member of the consensus joined an overtly (and rightly so) political think tank, and got some mean emails for it.
It was wrong. It shouldn’t have happened. But it happens every day. With much more vicious tactics.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Eagles songs.
GaryM, well said! My speculation about Bengtsson’s reaction to pressure (only speculation ofc) is that he felt particularly devastated by harsh criticism and attacks from colleagues he had known for many years and who had highly respected him over many years). He had to know he was going to get a lot of criticism and push-back, smears etc. from strangers in the media, public etc. but I’m guessing he was unprepared for long-time close colleagues to turn on him. It’s like one day he is a renowned scientist among his peers and the next he is scum of the earth.
I also wonder how he failed to be aware of the certainty of such widespread reactions, but ofc I am not in his shoes.
> No one has, so I will.
You forgot to say it, GaryM.
Go for it. Obama is listening.
Willard,
Shoot, Obama can’t even be bothered to listen to his generals and the State Department while one of our embassies is under attack and Americans are dying, So I doubt I have to worry about taxing him by making him listen to the Eagles.
Come on, GaryM. You’re supposed to say that Lennart should wear his big boyz’ pants. You have not said it, only that you’ll say it. No big deal. Please continue.
Think Obama, again.
willard,
I’ll take lessons in clarity from you when I take lessons in sobreity from Lindsay Lohan.
There are plenty of lessons from Lohan and from willard. Quiz in the AM.
=============
Kim, the lessons from Lohan are a lot more fun, but it’s difficult to remember them in the morning.
Glad to know that GaryM only accepts sobriety lessons from teetotallers and that he wears stunning big boyz pants.
Yet another comment where GaryM adds “progressive” to the mix, in our case “progressive vilification,” as if progressives were alone to vilify, or did it best.
Sigh.
Dang, give away the extra credit question, willya?
=========
Rud Istvan, whether the scummy behaviour happens in the business world the question is whether the perpetrators can force people.
ln a free market protected by a justice system, they cannot, whether that is a business market or an ideas market.
However, most climate science funding is by government force, media are supported by government force (mailing subsidies, licensing, and exemption from anti-trust laws for example), and scientific publications are supported by government purchasers).
> whether the scummy behaviour happens in the business world the question is whether the perpetrators can force people.
Ze question, again:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/05/earth-to-libertarians-private-parties-have-coercive-power-too.html
Think smallpox.
Someone should be able to say on behalf of science or plain common sense — without the risk of losing employment– that the act of simple act of electing Obama stopped the seas from rising, as if they were or even if they were that the oceans respond to Western politics.
This battle is not about science: no one has shown anything wrong with Prof. Bengtsson’s theories or papers. But he dared to (potentially) publicly discuss dissenting views. Horror! The science is settled; dissenting views are erroneous by definition; no one should waste time opposing them.
Long Live the Party Unity! Death to the Enemies of the Party!
Michael –
–> “We’ll just have to remind Judith that in future when she criticises Michael Mann, she;s being a ‘climate MCarthyist’.”
Judith has to do that. How else will Mann know that how deeply offended she is when Mann calls her a “denier?”
I’m surprised Judith just didn’t tell Lenny to put his big boy pants on.
His big boy pants are already on, but at age 79 it is fair enough to decide what you don’t want to put up with. He isn’t playing the personal victim card in a big way, but is rather raising the broader issues of ‘climate McCarthyism”
Pants or no pants, the cat is out of the bag. The science in Bengtsson’s paper will stand whether it’s published or not. The reviewer has revealed that alarmist modeling is fantasy, and policy based on fantasy is unsustainable.
Nevermind destructive.
=========
Lenny wears big, old, Scottish boy pants.
Why not call out a “consensus” organization and resign from one of those? Why reward thugs by resigning GWPF?
Hey, willard, you’re supposed to wear big shoes and shed fake tears.
==========
As for “McCarthyism”, he is from Sweden and may have no idea the misuse of the term. Then again it’s a clever way to avoid the sort of friends he doesn’t like picking up along the way. Sticking with this bogus tag line insures it remains an inside the moonbat circle spat and that again is pandering to the consensus.
Skeptical minimalism, I might detest this practice more than the Ivy League prat culture shoving know-it-all AGW socialism down the public’s throat. They might not be able to deprogram them but the skeptic who does know the evil at hand and plays this game is worst culprit of all.
” He isn’t playing the personal victim card in a big way, but is rather raising the broader issues of ‘climate McCarthyism”…” – JC
No, more like in a massive way.
We’ll just have to remind Judith that in future when she criticises Michael Mann, she;s being a ‘climate MCarthyist’.
This is all so stupid and petty, it’s hilarious.
I’m laughing my pants off, trying to look like you.
=========
Stop whining, mikey. Your smarmy alarmist cabal are not the only folks entitled to use hyperbole. Leftists love to scream about McCarthyism. But now your ox got gored. Ole Tail Gunner Joe get’s a little venganza.
https://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/466584919498846208
@cwon14: Why not call out a “consensus” organization and resign from one of those? Why reward thugs by resigning GWPF?
Been there, done that. ;)
And by a Nobel laureate no less!
Here’s another.
There is plenty of mixed feelings about the pejorative use of a fake liberal code term like “McCarthyism”. It injects another false narrative into what is the existing false green/leftist narrative regarding “climate change”.
How many lies are we asked to sort through at one time?
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-11-07.html
“The Rosetta Stone of liberal lies”
Bengtsson used the term and it was pretty foolish of the National Review to use the idiotic term that blank checks liberal revisionist history in one false word. It’s one of the earliest one/few word propaganda captions from the 20th century U.S.. Others include; “Iran/Contra”, “Vietnam” (with meaningful facial expressions of deep knowing knowledge, largely from the similarly clueless “intelligentsia”), “Watergate” (sort of laughable at this point when partisan moral authority is assumed) but it goes on forever via media and academic lexicon enforcement. Not to leave out all the green propaganda one and few liners; “Blood for oil”, “big oil”, “industrialism”, “creationists”, “religious right”, “tobacco”, “carbon interests” or the topical “coal” (you have to say it like they are heroin dealers working at a primary school playground). All messaging all the time, it saves time wasted on logic. Let’s not leave out “settled science”, another classic and yes the imagined McCarthyite bully stereotype in an actual real and true form.
I’m sure it was a calculated use, it can have a number of goals either to reassure the Greenshirt authority that he is still on the team and/or upset the club members by the ancient backhanded club practice of comparing your fallen out political peers and friends to your common hated political culture. He might have called them “TeaParty” members if he wanted to be more hip about it but maybe the age 79 thing is the driver here and the myth of McCarthyism and all the false imagery worked the room effectively.
The fact that he kissed up and resigned leads me to believe the “McCarthyism” add-in is more on the make nice (I’m still one of you) messaging side rather than insulting the consensus crowd. If he was really reformed, just as with Dr. Curry talking about “hypocrisy” why not just point out that the AGW culture as a larger whole is a deep green advocacy and dominated culture from the onset over 40+ years ago?? How is observing one falsehood while perpetuating (or covering up) the sort of equivocal nonsense of the last paragraph helpful? It implied the climate arena isn’t dominated by left-wing advocacy policy in broad TOTALITY which it is. So neither Dr. Curry or Bengtsson are being honest simply because they are pointing out consensus peer repression while obfuscating a rather obvious cultural point many skeptics bring to the table time and again. The “consensus” is left-wing advocacy defined and the failure to acknowledge DIRECTLY AS SUCH it is a form of dishonesty also. By referring to the climate advocacy leadership as some minority segment of the field is beyond misleading. You would think the amount of twitter hate and isolation she gets from “peers” she would capitulate this reality. Inner ideology is the only reasonable explanation for the inconsistent messaging from either of these parties. It will be treated like a “spat” between club members and therefore no real “reform” can be expected from the episode. Dr. Curry talks reform but really accepts this status quo and supports it as I’ve described. It’s cultural dissonance, the denial that it is the overall value sets of AGW consensus politics that are central so the focus shifts to day-to-day manifestations rather than linking the ideology and actual history together. The “socialism with a human face” fantasy preserved.
There is plenty of mixed feelings about the pejorative use of a fake liberal code term like “McCarthyism”. It injects another false narrative into what is the existing false green/leftist narrative regarding “climate change”.
How many lies are we asked to sort through at one time?
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-11-07.html
“The Rosetta Stone of liberal lies”
Bengtsson used the term and it was pretty foolish of the National Review to use the idiotic term that blank checks liberal revisionist history in one false word. It’s one of the earliest one/few word propaganda captions from the 20th century U.S.. Others include; “Iran/Contra”, “Vietnam” (with meaningful facial expressions of deep knowing knowledge, largely from the similarly clueless “intelligentsia”), “Watergate” (sort of laughable at this point when partisan moral authority is assumed) but it goes on forever via media and academic lexicon enforcement. Not to leave out all the green propaganda one and few liners; “Blood for oil”, “big oil”, “industrialism”, “creationists”, “religious right”, “tobacco”, “carbon interests” or the topical “coal” (you have to say it like they are heroin dealers working at a primary school playground). All messaging all the time, it saves time wasted on logic. Let’s not leave out “settled science”, another classic and yes the imagined McCarthyite bully stereotype in an actual real and true form.
I’m sure it was a calculated use, it can have a number of goals either to reassure the Greenshirt authority that he is still on the team and/or upset the club members by the ancient backhanded club practice of comparing your fallen out political peers and friends to your common hated political culture. He might have called them “TeaParty” members if he wanted to be more hip about it but maybe the age 79 thing is the driver here and the myth of McCarthyism and all the false imagery worked the room effectively.
The fact that he kissed up and resigned leads me to believe the “McCarthyism” add-in is more on the make nice (I’m still one of you) messaging side rather than insulting the consensus crowd. If he was really reformed, just as with Dr. Curry talking about “hypocrisy” why not just point out that the AGW culture as a larger whole is a deep green advocacy and dominated culture from the onset over 40+ years ago?? How is observing one falsehood while perpetuating (or covering up) the sort of equivocal nonsense of the last paragraph helpful? It implied the climate arena isn’t dominated by left-wing advocacy policy in broad TOTALITY which it is. So neither Dr. Curry or Bengtsson are being honest simply because they are pointing out consensus peer repression while obfuscating a rather obvious cultural point many skeptics bring to the table time and again. The “consensus” is left-wing advocacy defined and the failure to acknowledge DIRECTLY AS SUCH it is a form of dishonesty also. By referring to the climate advocacy leadership as some minority segment of the field is beyond misleading. You would think the amount of twitter hate and isolation she gets from “peers” she would capitulate this reality. Inner ideology is the only reasonable explanation for the inconsistent messaging from either of these parties. It will be treated like a “spat” between club members and therefore no real “reform” can be expected from the episode. Dr. Curry talks reform but really accepts this status quo and supports it as I’ve described. It’s cultural dissonance, the denial that it is the overall value sets of AGW consensus politics that are central so the focus shifts to day-to-day manifestations rather than linking the ideology and actual history together. The “socialism with a human face” fantasy preserved.//
The trouble with climate science is that it has been polluted right from the start, with phrases like ‘the science is settled’ and ‘greenhouse gas’ . The models failed to account for the on/off nature of climate change and there is no greenhouse in the sky. These were just the opinions of early investigators who invented labels like this to fool an uncritical public. It is a pity that many competent scientists went along with this deception.
So what should be done? The first should be to drop the out-of-date 19th century science of Arrhenius and embrace the 20th century science of Max Planck. Once it is recognized that climate is am on/off phenomenon and the number of neutrons in carbon change its energy absorbing capabilities and continuous models therefor won’t work, we might be on a path to better dynamic modelling.
Dear Alexander — This week is the 25th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. As such, Nobel Science Prize winner Dr. Molina has been vocal, comparing (in his view) the similarities between ozone depletion and global warming. In this article he asks “What is it about Planck’s Law and the Boltzmann constant that is now in dispute?”. “A similar question was asked for Kirchhoff’s Law and the other equations which can be used to calculate the observed temperature of the atmosphere, all of which have been developed over the last century and can be found in books such as Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry”, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999.
http://theenergycollective.com/davidhone/60610/back-basics-climate-science
Stephen: I don’t disagree with what you say about Dr Molina. In fact he supports Max Planck’s basic ideas on their application to the science of climate change. But I see precious little of that in the successive reports of the IPCC. In fact, they seem to support the view that all CO2 is the same, which may be true in chemistry, but not in the physics of IR radiation absorption and emission.
The IPCC have never exposed the details of the 20 or so independent models they support, presumably that is why they have 20 models, when one good one would be enough. So we do not know whether they are continuous dynamic models, or not. If they support Planck they should be discontinuous, as best shown by the 1940 singularity in global temperature. 19th century science cannot explain how the prior rapid rise in global temperature could fall just as rapidly in a single year, despite or with CO2 change. In the 20th century that is just a change in the vibration modes of the CO2 molecule. Thank you for your reply.
Stephen Segrest: In this article he asks “What is it about Planck’s Law and the Boltzmann constant that is now in dispute?”. “A similar question was asked for Kirchhoff’s Law and the other equations which can be used to calculate the observed temperature of the atmosphere, all of which have been developed over the last century and can be found in books such as Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry”, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999.
The question is whether such knowledge is both sufficiently complete and sufficiently accurate to predict the effects of increased CO2 in a high dimensional non-linear dynamic dissipative system such as the Earth climate system. To date, there is no demonstration that the knowledge is both sufficient and accurate; attempts to make calculations are based on unrealistic simplifying assumptions, like the counterfactual assumption that there is a change from one equilibrium to another. That is what is in dispute, to answer your questions directly. Check out the book “Modern Thermodynamics” by Kondepudi and Prigogine, the later chapters, for some perspective on what the difficulties are. Then Dykstra’s book “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics” for analyses of ENSO and some others.
If you have been reading for a year you know of WebHubTelescope’s model that predicts a 2C increase in Earth mean temp for a doubling of CO2. It’s pretty independent of atmospheric thermodynamics and chemistry, and has not been tested on out-of-sample data. What do you think of it?
Alexander — I studied and practice in the fields of engineering and ag science and believe that its probably not a good idea for a trajectory path of 800 to 1,000 ppm. On the other hand, I don’t have a clue really what actions we should take for the reasons you articulated. This doesn’t mean “do nothing”. I personally like the no-regrets concept that Dr. Muller (BEST) advocates of dramatic increases in world-wide research in things like safe fracking. I come to this blog to try and understand the “science” better.
@AB: In fact, they seem to support the view that all CO2 is the same, which may be true in chemistry, but not in the physics of IR radiation absorption and emission.
While it is true that nine molecular species of CO2 occur in the atmosphere, the data in the By-Molecule Folder at
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
shows that the C-12 O-16 species currently accounts for 98.42% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. The next most abundant species, C-13 O-16, is only 1.106%, or about 4 parts per million by volume of the whole atmosphere.
By what mechanism can 4 ppmv of CO2 with an extra neutron in its carbon atom significantly modify the impact of CO2 on global warming? (Not a rhetorical question.)
@MM: If you have been reading for a year you know of WebHubTelescope’s model that predicts a 2C increase in Earth mean temp for a doubling of CO2.
That’s very close to the observed (not predicted) 1.92 I obtain on slide 28 of my AGU talk at
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/PrattAGUFM13.pdf
based solely on multidecadal HadCRUT4 (“LOW” in the analysis) and the observed atmospheric CO2 since 1820 (with the pre-Mauna Loa observations taken from the Law Dome cores per slide 24). (For convenience I used 41% of the CDIAC emissions, but slide 25 shows that that’s essentially identical with the Law Dome and Mauna Loa data.)
I interpret this to mean that the considerable additional data WHT uses in his model doesn’t make much difference to the outcome.
Slides 30 and 31 ask what the climate sensitivity would have to be in order to account for the observed rise in temperature assuming the ocean delayed the lumped thermal impact of CO2 radiative forcing by a fixed d years over the whole observed period. Slide 31 plots a function s(d) giving the observed (in this sense) climate sensitivity in °C per doubling of CO2 for d from zero to 30 years. s(0) = 1.92 as above, s(10) is about 2.25, s(25) is about 3, and s(30) is about 3.3
Fixed d is rather simple minded, and one could repeat this analysis for more complex dependencies of delay as a function of year. I don’t have any such variations that are any more plausible than fixed delay.
What are the implications of a fixed delay for forecasting? This depends on what you think CO2 is going to do in the future. While I did not do any modeling in my talk this time, a year ago (google “within a millikelvin”) I used the Hofmann et al raised-exponential model of increasing atmospheric CO2. Using Hofmann’s original numbers and expressing CO2 level c as a multiple of 280 ppmv (so today’s 400 ppmv becomes 400/280 = 1.43) and time t as number of 32.5-year periods since 2054 (the year Hoffman’s formula predicts CO2 will reach 2*280 = 560 ppmv; today t = (2014 − 2054)/32.5 = −1.231), Hoffman’s formula greatly simplifies to
c = 1 + 2^t.
The Arrhenius formula then gives the increase in global warming as some multiple of ln(1 + 2^t). What that multiple happens to be is irrelevant to the rest of this comment.
Now when 2^t is much smaller than 1, as it was for most of the previous century, ln(1 + 2^t) is approximately 2^t. In other words Hoffman’s model says that global warming throughout the period 1800 to around 1990 should have added an exponentially growing temperature to essentially whatever the temperature was prior to 1800, which the Hoffman model takes to be constant (certainly not true, it’s just a model).
But as 2^t approaches and then passes 1 (in 2054 according to the model), 2^t will start to dominate. In the long run therefore ln(1 + 2^t) will grow linearly with t instead of exponentially!
In this analysis global warming is approaching the knee of a curve that is gradually transitioning from exponential growth to linear growth.
On the face of it this would seem like great news. Continued exponential growth in temperature (relative to 1800 temperature as 0 in the model) would be horribly worse than a future with linear growth.
However the Arrhenius formula does not take delay into account. What would a delay d of say 20 years in conjunction with the Hofmann formula imply about future global warming?
If the warming we’re observing today is due to the radiative forcing from d years ago then temperature should be increasing at some multiple of ln(1 + 2^(t − d)). A little thought shows that this has the effect of delaying the merciful transition from exponential to linear growth by d years!
Ouch.
Regardless of what one believes climate sensitivity to be, ocean delay is not good for us. Hope it’s not large.
So far Hofmann’s model of rising CO2 has been spot on. How badly does it have to break down in the 21st century in order to significantly invalidate the threat posed by a large delay? Likewise for delay itself: how far from constant does it have to be to invalidate the threat? I don’t know, though I’d guess it would have to break down a lot worse than it has to date.
Vaughan Pratt: That’s very close to the observed (not predicted) 1.92 I obtain on slide 28 of my AGU talk at
Your model and WebHubTelescope’s model have a lot in common, but he gets his “noise” estimates from multiple linear regression on some covariates such as the SOI and “stadium wave”. (“noise” is in quotes because it is a short word meaning “due to everything else except CO2 that occurs naturally.”)
The flip side of this is that the alarmist consensus(Hello, Yanks), be it extraordinary popular delusion or conspiracy, is revealed as deathly afraid of the GWPF. And for the GWPF, hello Streisand Effect.
Hey, that’s two flip sides. Let me take a closer look at that coin.
==========
A refreshingly new direction for kim’s perennial flippancy…?
V, one of my favorite stories from Climate Audit is when someone suggested that I’d wandered into the wrong classroom, and I responded that I was just auditing the class.
===============
It’s in the record, a top hit 45 rpm.
============
I could have sworn your head-spinning wit was cranked up to 78 rpm.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
This is more than irony — it’s hypocrisy.
Perhaps this is inevitable, since the AGW hypothesis was polluted by politics from its inception. It’s impossible to read the Climategate emails (particularly the “Harry read me” file) without realizing that the conclusion — AGW is catastrophic and requires immediate and urgent action — preceded the research and drove the research into ever more untenable territory. Knowing the limitations and fatal flaws of their models, competent and forthright researchers would have acknowledged this as publicly as they announced their flawed findings in the first place. Instead, a self-appointed clique of gatekeepers obfuscated, stalled and prevaricated. Eminent and qualified scientists who took issue with AGW were ostracized and even sued. Small wonder that other scientists and journalists opted to either parrot the received wisdom or simply keep their heads down, for fear of professional destruction.
Thanks to them, we have no idea of the nature or extent of present warming. Until “the science” is returned to its proper place in the debate, we never will.
The need for understanding of climate will steadily increase into the future, unless, of course, we descend into savagery. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will regret the cost of the lost scientific opportunities of the last three decades in pursuit of these fantasy ‘scientific based’ policies.
=============
Could people respond to this quote: From November 2012 through December 2013, there were 2,258 peer reviewed climate articles from 9,136 authors. Only 1 article rejected man-made global warming:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/16/drudge-promotes-global-scientific-conspiracy/199355
No one is really rejecting man made warming. The significance of the warming and what should be done if anything is the issue. Warming and carbon emissions may not even be harmful.
This is a precious question, in a thread about the suppression of skeptical dissent in the consensus climate community.
Y’all just don’t get irony, do you?
Tell George Soros we all said hi.
Gary M — I don’t know George Soros, but I do know Jon Huntsman (and his support staff) — working as a volunteer for him in the past. Anything you want me to tell him about fairness?
John — Oh if only your 1st sentence were true with sound bites of “junk science”, “hoax”, . . . . being commonly used by politicians and talking heads. And by the way, I 100% agree with your 2nd sentence (although I’d add the word timing).
See your 2,258 and raise you an additional 1,350+ anti-AGW peer reviewed papers…
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Stephen Segrest,
You weren’t quoting Huntsmam or his staff. You were quoting the Soros run MediaMatters.
And yeah, you can give Huntsman a message for me. Stay in Utah. We have enough “moderate” Republicans in Washington DC already.
Gary, the President lives in Washington. If you want a Republican President, it will very likely have to be someone like Huntsman. Do you have a conservative candidate in mind, who has much of a chance of getting more than 45% of the vote?
There is only one measure of science – the capacity to make predictions.
e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
Funny about that.
Don Monfort,
If the best this country can do is Huntsman, we are lost. and he’s better than most.
The reality is there are very few genuinely conservative candidates nationally. so far. Conservatives have to gain control of the GOP before they can hope to lead the government. And if they can’t do the first, they have no business doing the second,
Right now, the only two nationally prominent politicians I consider genuinely conservative are Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. There is a reason they are both so demonized by the left, including Republican progressives.
But I do not care if conservatives win the very next election. It took hard core progressives 20 years to take control of the Democrat Party. They were patient. They built their base (by lying about what they wanted to do, but they built it).
It took another 20 before they could elect the first openly progressive president since FDR. Carter was an aberration due to Watergate, ad no one knew what he actually stood for. Clinton had to run as a centrist/conservative Democrat.
Obama lied during the campaign, but before he ran for president, he was quite frank about what he meant by “fundamentally transform America.”
Conservatives have to stop surrendering control of the Republican Party to the progressives in hopes of eking out a 1 or 1% victory for the next Bush, McCain or Romney. All they will do is centralize power at a slightly slower pace.
The 60s Democrat activists learned from Mao the lesson of the long war. and they have been patiently working from within all this time. That is one of the reasons they are becoming so aggressive. This is their time they believe. And Copenhagen made them realize they might just not make it,
Republican conservatives have been duped for too long into looking to the next election, rather than the long term health of the country. They have to see the weakness of progressivism, and educate the public by running candidates who actually understand conservative economic, social and foreign policy principles.
So I don;t care if the next GOP presidential candidate loses by 1, 5 or 10 percent. As long as he/she gives the American people a genuine conservative choice,.
“Could people respond to this quote: From November 2012 through December 2013, there were 2,258 peer reviewed climate articles from 9,136 authors. Only 1 article rejected man-made global warming:”
Stephan,after a little research I’ll accept your sincerity in asking your question. My response (which I believe is mainstream skeptic) is that there is a man-made element to global warming given our CO2 emissions.
Not asked but remarkably, even with those emissions, there has been almost no warming for many years.
Stephen Segrest: Only 1 article rejected man-made global warming:
Most people accept that land-use changes (deforestation, urbanization) can contribute to measured global temperature change. How much evidence is there that anthropogenic CO2 is an agent in creating ongoing warming? That it exceeds 0.5 C per century? That the effects will be deleterious? That shunting $3 trillions into renewable energy in a decade (specifics are usually omitted, only that an awful lot must be done really soon) will change anything?
Altogether, the evidence is full of liabilities.
” I am excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities..” – JC
An assertion.
Sounds like more victim card playing. – a ‘skeptical’ specialty.
No victim card – I’m over it already and on to better and more interesting things :)
Victims are entitled to play the victim card, mikey.
“Mchael” —
Should you ever finally prove worthy of shining Judith Curry’s shoes…….. well then you can hope you might be allowed to shine her shoes.
Just FYI, Michael.
And (pers. comm.)
Willard …. “And (pers. comm.)”
Wow, do you guys need to whisper behind the walls to plan your latest tactics? How does the need for such secrecy arise here?
The “(pers. comm.)” refers to this, Skiphil:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/16/reflections-on-bengtsson-and-the-gwpf/#comment-556867
Hope this helps.
oh thx, Willard, that does help, and I apologize for my misplaced sarcasm.
I don’t really like to lapse into the heat and hostility of the climate wars, and feel bad when I do. Time for me to go offline and chill…..
“Just FYI, Michael.
And (pers. comm.)” – willard
This is exactly the problem with people like Judith and Lenny.
Despite all the mealy-mouthed pontificatng about ‘free speech’ and ‘scientific integrity’- you aren’t allowed to disagree with them.
If you do, you’re the ‘thought police, or it’s ‘McCarthyism’, or ‘smearing’ or other such vapid drivel.
“Sounds like more victim card playing. – a ‘skeptical’ specialty.”
Gee, it almost sounds like you do not know how the game is played over $150k/year. If you have relevant knowledge – please contradict me.
Robert,
Judith is keen to blame Romm and others, but maybe she should take a closer look in the mirror.
She has a pattern of behaviour that involves injudicious public statements attacking colleagues.
It would be no surprise if potential employers viewed this as a significant negative.
From a layman’s point of view, an example of trust is when the BEST team from Berkeley (Dr. Muller) gets major funding from the Koch Brothers; conducts research; and presents findings that the Koch Brothers wouldn’t like.
They liked the results.
look there was an honest serious question about the temperature record.
Both Bill Clinton and the Kochs agreed it was a serious question, and an honest question.
we promised an independent look at it.
we used methods suggested FIRST by skeptics.
They were happy with the results.
Who was unhappy. some british reviewer (ahem) . The things he wrote in the review were political and personal.
Who was Unhappy: Many skeptics.
Go figure
I’m not unhappy. I just don’t trust it. It was paid for by the Koch brothers. I don’t need to point out any flaws. That is argument enough.
Regarding Bengtsson:
“A guide on how to convert witches to Christianity has been published by the Roman Catholic Church in Britain. The move comes in response to fears that growing numbers of teenagers are being lured into Wicca, occult practices and paganism by the heroic depiction of witches in entertainment including the Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice films, and TV.”
“It also instructs on ‘how to evangelise a witch’ should readers come across such a person in their circle of friends or at the local pub.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353517/Catholic-Church-issues-guide-convert-Harry-Potter-witches-Christianity.html
Maybe some people were just trying to save him.
I have now been following this blog for about 1 year. During this time I’ve seen lots of criticisms of the AGW “Alarmists”. But I’ve never heard one peep about the extremely poor track record of Industry in predicting economic impact of environmental regs. Claims that Acid Rain regs would quadruple electricity rates — banning CFCs would collapse the World’s economy . . . and we could go on and on about Industry’s economic projections that just didn’t happen.
I have brought up the parallels between the alarmist rhetoric about the supposed catastrophic economic impact of regulating CFCs, at places like the WSJ, and the alarmist rhetoric about the supposed catastrophic economic impact of regulating ACO2, at places like the WSJ.
Just because you bring it up, doesn’t mean that “skeptics” will address the substance of the issues. Skeptics would, but “skeptics” feel no such inclination.
Who is “industry”? Sounds like a lot of people, stevie. Are you at liberty to mention any names? What exactly did they predict? Do any of these “industry” guys look like a strawman?
You have been here a year and you have learned nothing.
Joshua — I find the “most” vocal folks (like Don Monfort) on this blog just not serious contributors. Waste of time and talking to a brick wall to someone so unaware (or so full of hate) of the clear history of the Acid Rain and CFC debates — and the significant cost effective solutions that came during Republican Administrations.
To these wackos — President Reagan (Montreal Protocol), every Republican President from Nixon to George W., and now Jon Huntsman would be commie liberal socialists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=1&
You two should get a room. CFCs and acid rain have nothing to do with CAGW. Same goes for tobacco smoke and the price of potatoes. Some Republicans are on board with CO2 abatement! That’s a surprise, I thought we were all supposed to be knuckledragging anti-science morons. Now where is your evidence for the poor track record of industry predictions, stevie. Ask little joshie to help you. He’s all over evidence.
Stephen Segrest: But I’ve never heard one peep about the extremely poor track record of Industry in predicting economic impact of environmental regs.
Yeh.
This is mostly about CO2. I have occasionally brought in alar, acrilonitrile, aspartame, saccharine etc as examples that academy/ government regulation is not always science based; but I have only done so in response to others who bring in tobacco and CFCs.
What do you say to the people who assert that the US and EU did not actually cut down on pollution but only exported it to China, along with much of their manufacturing activity; and that this has in fact had serious deleterious economic consequences in the US and EU,despite poorly predicted? How about the claim that entrepreneurs are departing California and other high regulatory states with detrimental economic consequences to those states?
For the CO2 debate, it’s best to focus on CO2. Everyone has been wrong sometimes in the past, so past errors are not that informative in the CO2 debate.
Dear Matthew Marler — Yes, remembering history is extremely relevant. Take SO2 (Acid Rain) for example. Back in the 1980’s, the overwhelming consensus of electric utilities in their testimony to the CAA was that compliance would most likely occur by installing very high capital cost scrubbers. Consensus cost projections by the electric utility industry were that electricity prices would triple to quadruple. In reality, this just didn’t happen. Electric utilities (for the most part) just switched from high sulfur Eastern cost to low sulfur Western coal. This fuel switching coupled with a very innovative Republican program of SO2 trading resulted in compliance costs of Acid Rain never really being an issue nationally (it did hurt Eastern coal States but was a boom for places like Wyoming).
The problem with your’s and others logic is that you “assume” the worst (just like the electric utilities did with SO2). Do you think Dr. Muller (BEST) is a reasonably intelligent person? Dr. Muller says that if Governments of our Planet want to truly get serious about AGW, they will fund a world wide “Apollo type mission” to develop “safe fracking” for natural gas and ways to implement it.
If this did occur (and you can’t say its impossible to happen), this would not “wreck” the World’s economies. Cost effective fuel switching would occur, just like what happened with Acid Rain regs.
This is the type of stuff that Jon Huntsman talks about, but the Tea Party does its own brand of McCarthyism to shut him up and ridicule him.
So let me get this straight. Gas was NOT about $1/gal back in the 80s. It was always $3/gal+?
Yep! Must be! For the alarmists cannot be wrong.
What did a PC cost in 1983? What does it cost today? Same price right? Yup! Must be false!
@Stephen Segrest | May 16, 2014 at 9:39 pm | Reply
Back you your assertion that it was predicted electricity prices would quadruple.
From the article:
…
The Electric Utility Restructuring Oversight Committee spent the summer and fall exploring divestiture and the state’s high electric rates, but declined to force Public Service to sell the plants, including Merrimack Station in Bow, where the company recently invested $422 million in an air emissions scrubber.
Customers are currently paying some of the cost of the scrubber, but the assessment is expected to increase in the future. The PUC is in the process of determining how much of the $422 million price tag Public Service customers should pay, and the case has been contentious.
Those two issues are likely to be connected to the Northern Pass project in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, sits on the restructuring committee and had some heated exchanges with Public Service officials over the high cost of electricity and who is to blame.
…
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140330/NEWS0604/140339966
“The problem with your’s and others logic is that you “assume” the worst (just like the electric utilities did with SO2).”
Stephen,
Well, I do think that is the case with some people. But really, the issue is no one in industry wants more regulations. So in order to fight it, you have to make it sound like the regulation is going to be very harmful. Same tactic used by climate alarmists… exact same tactic. There is a hint of truth, but more hyperbole. That is how you get people to choose sides.
But to your previous point about regulations and industries poor record of making accurate predictions of doom and gloom. From my own experience in the type of business I am in (metal finishing), regulations have made a significant impact on the health of the industry. First I want to acknowledge that the regulations, CWA and CAA, improved the environment tremendously. Where it was common for metal finishers to dump toxic plating waste into the environment circa 1970, rivers and streams across the entire US made tremendous recoveries and are healthy today. The air is cleaner and employees work in much safer work environments. But this did come at an expense to business. Since the mid 1990’s, the number of metal finishing companies in the US has shrunk by about 1/2. Now many of these were small mom and pop shops doing very local business with little income. And to be fair, environmental regulations certainly are not the sole reason for their demise. But they did create additional burden and stress on business. Those small operations that could not afford to upgrade or buy environmental controls were left with little choice but to shutter the doors. Those that ignored the regulations eventually had to deal with the local or federal EPA. And if they did not make corrective actions, they were put out of business.
The company I work for made a decision. We decided to be survivors in a shrinking industry. The vision was, become environmentally responsible, cooperate with EPA and adjust our thinking from a fighting mentality to this is a ‘cost of doing business’ mentality. The reward would be to pick up all the business left behind by those that did not comply or could not compete. It worked. In the long run, the metal finishing companies that survived were the strong ones. Look at it this way…. a predator came to the territory and culled the herd of the sick and weak and diseased. The industry is smaller but in many ways stronger and healthier. Interestingly, when new air emission regulations targeting chromic acid were implemented in 1995 (NESHAP subpart N), the government predicted about 1/3 of hard chrome plating operations would effectively go out of business. I’m not sure how that prediction actually turned out. But based on my knowledge of the industry I would have to say it is closer to 1/2 and climbing. Again, the NESHAP regulation is not the sole reason for that decline since Chromic acid has also been identified as a carcinogen and targeted as a material to be greatly reduced in its usage. That is a different story.
Stephen Segrest: The problem with your’s and others logic is that you “assume” the worst (just like the electric utilities did with SO2).
When have I “assumed” the worst? I am in favor of fracking, but the long term reduction in CO2 from everyone adopting fracking isn’t going to be much since coal and liquid fuels from petroleum will still be burned everywhere. Fracking is not supported by all of the alarmists anyway, and they still (as in the letter from Alan Leshner sent out to all members of AAAS last week) call for unspecified amounts of extra $$$ to be invested immediately.
@John Carpenter | May 17, 2014 at 10:11 am |
The sort of environmental regulations you discuss are absolutely necessary. At one time, all manner of industries dumped or buried inorganic and organic chemical waste. I don’t know many people who believe that is a good thing.
But CO2 isn’t like mercury, cyanide, or ethylene oxide. CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle. It is crucial to the functioning of the environment, and the case against it is at best very weak. Horse of a different color.
Thank you for your story, John.
The biome was carbon dioxide starved and cold. Things are better now, thank Gaia for man.
============
Dear Jim2 — If you think you’ve got a “Gotcha” with New Hampshire and the CAA, you need a better example. There obviously is a mess in N.H., but I see nothing that’s its from Federal regs. It looks like the folks in N.H. wanted to go beyond Federal regs, especially with mercury. What resulted was a total breakdown between the Utility, the PSC, and the State Legislature — ending up in a Court case. Looks like a lot of “he said, she said” and “Monday morning quarterbacking” whether that scrubber should have been installed in the first place.
http://www.livefreeordiealliance.org/Issues/PrincipalIssues/Scrubber/tabid/108/Default.aspx
@Stephen Segrest | May 17, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
No, it’s not a “gothcha.” It’s just something I ran across trying to verify the “triple or quadruple” claim. I didn’t find anything. Again, can you back up your claim?
Dear Jim2 — I worked on this in the late 80’s, but will look for something to satisfy you on the Web.
I think advocacy is fine on either side, skepticism of the science is fine. Where the line is drawn is when someone (whether Bengtsson or Curry) makes broad accusations that the consensus supporters don’t support it based on science alone, but that they only follow peer pressure and political aims. They are saying that anyone who thinks 3 C per doubling is possible, doesn’t really deduce that from the evidence. A lot of scientists would resent having their objective conclusions being publicly touted on blogs as just a convenient one in some sense. The fact that Bengtsson and Curry have labelled the 97% in this disrespectful way could be an explanation for the lack of respect they get in return from many of them. They do need to think more carefully before tarring practically everyone in their own scientific community with the same brush, because doing that, it shouldn’t surprise them that they are getting a cold reception when they come across members of this majority, even if they haven’t spoken personally about them.
That’s incoherent, jimmy. Try something else.
Let’s make it simple. If I publicly accused every scientist who believed in the predictive value of quantum mechanics of hiding or suppressing contradictory results or just succumbing to peer pressure, how would I expect to be treated at a meeting of physicists?
Don Don does not digest abstract concepts, Jim D, so a counterfactual will be the end of him. Try proper names.
If, what? Who did that, jimmy dee? Maybe willie can help you come up with the names and some quotes.
You little freaking clowns are really struggling to defend your climate alarmist mob’s blatant McCarthyism against an 80 year old distinguished academic. It’s in all the papers. What’s going to happen to the prospects for your drastic, hairbrained mitigation schemes? This could be as bad as Climategate.
I have never seen so many of you simian trolls on here at the same time. You usually work in shifts, unless there is a big crisis. Carry on with your desperate foolishness.
> It’s in all the papers.
Indeed:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil
It’s way bigger than CG I and II, Don Don.
Think Pygmy genocide.
The Guardian is a looney-left rag, willie. They are compelled to defend the alarmist mob’s McCarthyism against an 80 year old distinguished scientist, just as you are. You all are desperate. Wait for it…the pause is killing the cause. This McCarthyismgate could be mo’ biggerer than Climategate. Why don’t you get some sleep, willie. You were never going to get your crazy CO2 mitigation schemes, anyway.
Don,
That’s not true, but it won’t come in the form they think it will. They think they’re getting sunshine and windmills, but in reality they’re going to be getting a lot of nuclear.
As an electrical engineer, I think that more nuclear, and innovations in nuclear is a very good thing, but I don’t think the supporters of the advocacy will feel the same way when they start popping up in their neighborhood.
That’s what I said, Scott. They are not going to get their schemes. They don’t want nuclear. They are as scared of nuclear power as they are of CAGW. They are pretty much screwed.
> This McCarthyismgate could be mo’ biggerer than Climategate.
Of course, since it’s bigger than East Timor already.
Jim D: The fact that Bengtsson and Curry have labelled the 97% in this disrespectful way could be an explanation for the lack of respect they get in return from many of them.
Surely you are not asserting that the 97% figure should be taken seriously. Are you?
Matthew Marler, whether it is 90% or 97%, they show a complete disrespect for a scientific view that is based on a lot of evidence by saying it is just peer pressure and/or political ends that lead to these high numbers of scientists in agreement with high sensitivities. Maybe they don’t deliberately wish to smear so many of their colleagues, but that is the way it looks when they speculate on why they think there is such a large consensus. Like I said, it is fine to advocate for low sensitivity, but don’t disrespect evidence-based scientific views that disagree, or even allow for higher sensitivity, by suggesting that all of these scientists don’t also think for themselves.
@Scott Basinger | May 17, 2014 at 12:51 am |
I would be happy to have a nuke plant, of a newer design, in my back yard. Not a problem at all.
Jim D: by saying it is just peer pressure and/or political ends that lead to these high numbers of scientists in agreement
They don’t say that it is just peer pressure and/or political ends; they say that the peer pressure and/or political ends are present and potent.
Matthew Marler, have either of them stated that the central estimate of 3 C per doubling is a valid scientific evidence-based position? No. Not that it matters, but they have pretty much ruled out any possibility of the consensus value being correct in their own minds, judging by what they write about the IPCC view. So, while the IPCC has accepted the full range 1.5-4.5 C, they have seemingly rejected the upper 80% of it, making their position much more certain than the IPCC’s who they ironically criticize for not being uncertain enough.
Now we see that the “97% consensus climate science” is so shoddy that the only way the consensus feels they can keep up the charade is to intimidate people and shut them out. The end is near. For the 97%, that is.
Here’s a good TV series for the 97%
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098837/
The progressive drones bullying Bengtsson are pikers.
The Democrat Party, the Senate in particular, and the Senate Majority Leader personally, are trying to change the US Constitution to allow them to control the speech of those who would dare to oppose them.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71154073/2011-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Reform-Campaign-Finance
This incident is regrettable. But there is a larger ongoing war over the very nature of western governance. Those who would “fundamentally change” it are fighting hard and dirty. At some point it would behoove a lot of those who are so shocked by this skirmish to take note of the real carnage going on around them.
Closer to home for Sen. Reid is the Yucca Mtn. nuke repository that took 30 years to build at a cost of billions, but because it’s 90 miles from Las Vegas he’s singlehandedly kept it closed. Meanwhile spent fuel rods are housed indefinitely at the reactors themselves, most of them much closer than that to dozens of cities in the US.
Mosh
Your 3.41 . I would guess all five categories apply, especially when a thread is a few days old and the denizens need fresh meat.
Why were you banned from the skeptical Science site?
Tonyb
So, when are we going to get over the ad hominem gossip mongering and back to dealing with facts and Science?
If you’ve all gotten this out of your systems, it might be worthwhile to get back to Climate, Etc.
Come on, Bart R.
Think Palestinian exodus.
willard (@nevaudit) | May 16, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
Not helping my boredom with the utter banality of this topic.
Facts and science always give way to stream of calumny in Bart’s rants. He is not polite? Well who would have guessed that the feather duster is still capable of crowing.
You have been free to skip this topic, barty. Yet , you are doing a considerable amount of desperate yammering. It’s understandable that you want to change the subject.
Don Monfort | May 16, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
Skipping to http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/05/16/weather-blog-global-warming-contradictions/
Feel free to discuss.
Discuss the ‘true forced warming’ and a pause of decades.
‘What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Of course, this contrasts sharply with other forecasts of the climate system; the purple line roughly indicates the model-based forecast of Smith et al. (2007) , suggesting with a warming of roughly 0.3 deg C over the 2005-2015 period.’ – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/#sthash.9xYaet8D.dpuf
Frankly the true forced warming seems more to do with CRE than otherwise.
Generalissimo Skippy | May 17, 2014 at 1:28 am |
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193/last:384/plot/esrl-co2/mean:191/mean:193/last:384/scale:0.01/offset:-3.35
There you go. Argument disposed of by fact. No pause.
Moving on?
“So, when are we going to get over the ad hominem gossip mongering and back to dealing with facts and Science?
If you’ve all gotten this out of your systems, it might be worthwhile to get back to Climate, Etc.”
Bart, your interest to change topics is of no concern here. If you require immediate scientific stimulation, I suggest you do as scientists do and get busy in a lab. Be productive bettering society by improving it through science action and not talk. Otherwise you are just another keyboard jockey. Besides, there is a reason for the ‘Etc’ part.
John Carpenter | May 17, 2014 at 10:24 am |
I was busy improving the world in March and April and the first week of May. I plan to be back at it again next week.
This week, Climate Etc. has an embarrassment of itches. Merely scratching at rash irritants, however urgent an impulse, is a low use of my time, and this topic has descended more rapidly and more deeply into charges and imputations of every ugly sort than most, in no small part because there’s so little to it, so little evidence of any fire under whatever Bengtsson and Lawson were smoking, and so much baseless rumormongering.
Nothing in these topics has improved the world, and it’s all so dull and predictable in its spiral through the layers of mudslinging.
Absent full disclosure from Bengtsson of all communications, and a chance to fully hear out the story from all sides, given how over-the-top Bengtsson and Lawson’s charges, I continue to call sham, and shame on them both.
There may be some difference between woodfordimwits and actual science.
1. Try to have a discussion of science. That would be Climate Dialogue.
nobody shows up.
2. Try to have a discussion of science. That would SkS, comments
get disappeared and some published authors, like me, are banned.
3. Try to have a discussion of science. That would be real climate.
count the comments until you see someone veering off in Koch conspiracy land. n<100.
4. Try to have a discussion of science. That would be Climate audit.
despite moderation and snipping comments veer off.
So, ask yourself. why can't we control dialogue, or rather why is controlled dialogue of no interest to a large portion of readers of all types.
Ask yourself why Joshua, why You, why willard, why Micheal, why FOMD
why moshpit, wagathon etc always veer into other spaces.
A. the devil makes us do it
B. science is not the issue to begin with.
C. readers drive dialog to grounds they know.
D. Its more fun
E. who knows
.
@Steven Mosher – Climate Audit is about the strictest for staying on topic, but as you noted, even they veer off course. The human mind is not like a computer and people will start out down one road, and think of something else and pursue that route. basically, I am saying F – Human nature.
Chief. Does this ever get less confusing?
“A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability. The opposite also holds.” – Kyle Swanson at RealClimate in 2007.
So when a skeptic says sensitivity is low, that would give us a more linear system. A highly sensitive system with the inability to quickly smooth changes out to the average would give us a less linear system.
Swanson’s first diagram at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
infers a break followed by a roughly 22 year journey back the mean. So sensitive to the break that it takes 22 years to get over it.
There was a discussion about step changes on the recent El Nino thread. Have another look at the first diagram.
Bart R: , Etc.
This is some of the “Etc”, and most interesting it is.
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=14
They are talking a different kind of sensitivity – not linear high or low at all but dynamic and high only at tipping points. These breaks occur at multi-decadal intervals – which Swanson presumes proceeds from warming to cooling and back again as seen in the instrumental record.
I can follow your S curve, sensitivity is T diagram, and that sensitivity varies.
Here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/natural-variability-and-climate-sensitivity/
I couldn’t see where Swanson was talking about a variable sensitivity.
For the clueless, this is the Etc.
I’m only a very occasional non science trained commenter here.
A day or two ago right out of the blue I had a phone call from a person who knew I regularly attended by invitation, the internal seminars of our local large Agricultural research organisation.
This was immediately following the Bengtsson McCarthyism affair.
He is a ordinary guy who doesn’t pay a lot of attention to science matters but nevertheless stays current with the trends in science and is one who pays quite lot of personal income taxes.
His language on the now almost inevitable and increasing utter negativity in every statement that originates from a science source and the revealment of the open and increasing McCarthyism that is pervading science at every level with Climate science’s university academic based gang culture structured attacks on any who dare stray from the dogma of alarmist science, was totally unprintable.
His angry sentiments on what he saw as the utter bigotry and corruption and greed of so much of science that are becoming a regular feature of any casual conversation where science is brought up right down at street level amongst the ordinary citizens, those lower life’s who the university based academic bigots just demand shut up and pay up as they aren’t fit to comment on any scientific outcome or project as they are so lacking in intelligence and are so dreadfully ignorant as being beyond the far superior intelligence that is required to be a ” SCIENTIST’.
Some, but not many scientists are aware of the increasingly bad, even , dreadful for climate alarmist science’s reputation, that science and scientists are rapidly acquiring through the ever greater revelations of gross examples of utter bigotry and corruption that is becoming increasingly evident and a feature of climate alarmist science and it’s associated dictatorial dogma..
The public at street level are now picking up on this and the attitudes and respect for science and scientists is being rapidly eroded away at street level and tax payer level with all that spells out for science overall as the politicals begin to reflect the attitudes of their electors as they surely must.
The rest of science, safely ensconced and isolated in their ivory towers and mostly securely isolated from street level / tax payer reality are deliberately ignorant of or simply don’t want to know just what the street level feelings are about science or the manner in which the public’s view of science is now starting to change for the worse.
Science in short has become the ostrich of our society with high and increasing maintenance costs and some parts of only limited use and some parts that only another ostrich could appreciate and with it’s head stuck firmly in the sand so it can’t see what is about to happen.
The price science and unfortunately our western society will pay unless and until western science cleans it’s stinking Augean stables and very soon will be very high indeed.
What we’d need is a good cleansing.
From the article:
…
The constant claim of consensus among so-called climatologists, who relentlessly claim man-made climate change has been established, attempts to impose by authority an end to the debate on fundamental questions. Thus a large number of scientist colleagues end up being ostracized, and thus could lead to the prompting of actions that would have considerable burdens on the well-intended society. Such a regulation and the resulting incalculable consequence it would have for all people would in our view – and that of many meteorological specialists we know – be irresponsible with respect to our real level of knowledge in this field.
We must desire in general, and also in our scientific field, a return to an international scientific practice that is free of pre-conceptions and cemented biased opinions. This must include the freedom of presenting (naturally well-founded) scientific results, even when these do not correspond to the mainstream (e.g. the IPCC requirements).
…
http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leaked-memo-on-climatology-exposes-growing-worry-within-german-meteorological-society-unacceptable-unethical-developments/
It seems every time I turn around, there are more leaks in the 97%’er ship.
Pingback: Judith Curry: Reflections On Bengtsson And The GWPF | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
This whole affair illustrates yet again how the self-conceit of some ‘scientists’ is leading to their own downfall.
Climate scientists have nothing to sell the public beyond the vague concept of ‘Trust Our Judgement’. They cannot show rising temperatures – for they are not rising. They cannot show working models – for they do not work. They cannot show ‘the missing heat’- for they cannot find it. There is nothing to show other than apparent sincerity and some vague sort of appeal to ‘higher learning’. Their judgement of the future is their USP.
And most of them know this. Hence their huge reliance on communicating the supposed 97% agreement (which itself seems to be a pretty shallow number). They cannot directly show the public how good the product is (for ‘good’ it is not), but must instead rely on telling us how good they all think it is…a sort of secondary reference sell.
And in such circumstances of marketing and intellectual weakness, one might imagine that the more savvy climos would be careful to do nothing to tarnish the illusion of sound judgement, probity and reliability. They have nothing else.
But nothing of the sort. The more self-regarding (and there are plenty who have this unhappy characteristic) continue to act as they always have – bombastically pronouncing themselves to be the sole judges of right and wrong, attempting to enforce unanimity by any means available and generally making public arses of themselves.
But the public are not fooled. They see this misbehaviour and its complete fantatstical disconnect from reality. L’affaire Bengtsson has eroded another chunk out of climos public credibility and hastened their descent into ridicule and vituperation.
When the final history of the collapse of their little climate cult comes to be written. one of the delights will be to see yet again how the Hubristic nature of the participants was a major factor in leading to their Nemesis.
Rupert Darwall should be preparing ‘The End of Global Warming’ as the successor to his excellent ‘The Age of Global Warming’. The first showed how the seeds were sown.. the second will show how they sprouted and grew. I greatly look forward to reading it soon.
The alarmists can not see the forest (failed AGW theory) through the trees (decades of their own lies)…
I would never sell short the public’s instincts.
When they are paying attention, they usually get it right.
There’s a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of the therm McCarthyism here. None of it seems to start with a definition of the term, instead leaning on a subjective sense of how “bad” it has to be to deserve the label.
Here is a definition from Wikipedia. I’m sure there are others. “McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.” To my mind, this fits pretty well.
Dr. Spencer nails it:
“Spencer: ‘I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those “denier” types. I think we might be seeing the death throes of alarmist climate science. They know they are on the ropes, and are pulling out all the stops in a last ditch effort to shore up their crumbling storyline.’ ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalypse/
If I may quote him here in case he doesn’t feel like repeating himself, Mosher addresses (at CA) something I’d been wondering about but have no way to speak to myself (not knowing these kinds of papers). Is the ERL reviewer’s hurdle for what the Bengtsson paper needed to do, in order to be publishable, actually reasonable, or not? Is the same (or comparable) hurdle required for papers that ERL reviewer approves of? Also, how many papers in that field have successfully addressed the kinds of issues that this reviewer demands of Bengtsson?
Steve Mosher at CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8
Usually because they are pissant progressives whose post-hoc pause rationalizations are vaguely similar to a priori predictions by those they call deniers – without getting it quite right – and who are hell bent on world domination by the collective once they can workshop a vision statement that no one objects to. Resistance is futile having been focus grouped and rejected on the basis that it sounds a bit silly coming from sandal clad, tofu eating, snod-faced gits.
The intensity with which the Consensus strives to shut down debate and dissent, is indicative of how flimsy they find their own case.
When individuals have it right, they exude a body language that reflects that self confidence. When they don’t, the
defensiveness is unmistakable and easy to see. Group dynamics show the same fingerprints. They may not want to admit it, but there is a deep down reason for the edginess. If they truly believed they had it right, the skeptics wouldn’t bother them a whit.
Yes, climate science engendered politics which cannot sustain it.
=============
Ditto their sanctioning, by their silence, of systemic dishonesty as revealed by eg Climategate.
‘The essence of science is validation by observation. But it is not enough for scientific theories to fit only the observations that are already known. Theories should also fit additional observations that were not used in formulating the theories in the first place; that is, theories should have predictive power.’ http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
The urgent question is not who’s in the consensus – but who got it right.
Climate scientists explain everything and predict nothing.
Two intertwining thoughts. BMJ has just retracted an article on statins from a Harvard doctor as it’s claims that statins might cause heart disease and that the known side effects on muscles and liver outweighed it’s benefits in otherwise healthy individuals.
This was due to pressure from the many consensus doctors who could not bear to see their beliefs overturned (not the drug companies.
The consensus always supports crass views and thuggery by individuals as long as their actions and intents are to support the consensus.
However views do change, in medicine and life and climate change. It have seen radically opposite views win out over time in medicine turning established practices on their heads and in time seen these views overturned as well.
Currently things are falling into place to question the tenets of climate change and bring about a reversal. When it happens warmists will be treated just as derogatorily as skeptics have been. This will not be a cause to gloat, it is just human nature.
‘McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”[1] The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against communists, as well as a fear campaign spreading paranoia of their influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.’ Wikepedia
Seriously – this is the way they roll. The term is common usage and appropriate for the behavior of the groupthink collective. Truth is subsumed to ends. Endless streams of calumny are legitimized. Heretics are denounced. Waverers are condemned as criminals and psychopaths. They don’ want to roll this back but to say qui moi – as if it ain’t so. All part of the big lie.
I asked this before. Might not this same sort pressure be applied to those advising the APS on CAGW?
You quote Darwall’s reference to a tweet by Gavin Schmidt:
“Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”
It is clear that Rupert Darwall does not understand the English phrase “acting in bad faith”; what is your reason for quoting him?
“Acting in bad faith” = “not falling in line with the CAGW propaganda.”
“bad faith” fo Schmidt is simply : failing to unswervingly practice the official religion as handed down by high priests like himself.
So we have two more who don’t understand the meaning of the phrase. In this isbnatcne he is prewumably using it in the sense of playing lip service to observing the scientific method and norms; but actually seeking to reach a predetermined answer and bending the data as required to get there.
“It is is somehow perfectly acceptable to involve green advocates (including those employed by green advocacy groups such as Greenpeace) as authors on the IPCC reports (Donna LaFramboise has discussed this). But holy hell breaks loose when a scientist like Bengtsson takes an unpaid position on the advisory board of think tank that is not ‘green.’”
This is because there is no counter-culture to set against the dominance of CAGW, and not even any procedural or legal safegaurds to stop CAGW culture going rampant within organisations. If you imagine the whole climate-science-and-policy arena objectively, as simply another area of human endeavour and service, like say ‘banking’ or ‘big business’, then one can see a direct comparison to rampant cultures that have gone out of control in these domains too. Consider this statement from ‘The Psychology of Corporate Dishonesty’ by Kath Hall of the Australian National University:
“Groupthink, therefore, increases the risk of corporate dishonesty. Just as individual dishonesty is always a part of trying to preserve or negotiate our self-image, so group dishonesty is fundamentally linked to preserving the corporate image. As McLean and Elkind wrote in the context of Enron: “Enron’s accounting games were never meant to last forever . . . The goal was to maintain the impression that Enron was humming along until Skilling’s next big idea kicked in and started raking in real profits . . . In Skilling’s mind, there was no way he was going to fail. He had always succeeded before, and his successes had transformed the company. Why would it be any different [now]?”
Yet the ‘corporate image’ and therefore the ‘corporate culture’ for various organizations, e.g. the IPCC or the UK Met Office, has become almost synonymous with climate change being a very major problem and being without doubt man-made. One might speculate that:
…their data accounting games were never meant to last forever . . . The goal was to maintain the impression that Climate Change was humming along until the next big temperature upswing kicked in and started raking in the real rewards and recognition.
Since the Enron scandal and banking crises, a great deal of effort has been put into corporate safegaurds against this cutural runaway. Similar techniques and laws should be used to combat the ‘corporate dishonesty’ within government, NGO, and scientific organizations working on Climate Change issues. Otherwise, driven by a powerful moral imperative and aligned personal motives, the natural course of cultural evolution in such organizations will spiral out of control, and I think already has in many organizations. It is this ‘cultural pressure’, this ’tilting of the moral table’, that allows organisations like the IPCC to escape sanction for massive advocacy, while modest organisations attempting to speak out against the dominant culture, like the GWPF, must tip-toe or be crushed. This massive asymmetry is extended to any individuals who associate themselves with such organisatiions, and an individual crossing the divide can fall from an angel to a demon in a single day.
Unless this problem is addressed at a fundamental cultural level, within all the organisations engaged in the ‘industry’ of CAGW, pleas for moral balance will likely fall on deaf ears. The point is that the morals themselves get tilted in the perception of those influenced by an aggressive culture. At the moment, the world does not formally recognise CAGW as a ‘culture’, hence there are no checks and balances against it in law or procedure. This perception is only just starting to occur informally, with many comments (even some from within the Consensus) recognising the ‘religious’ aspects of CAGW. But those who are influenced and are currently dominant, will resist any corrective balance, and it wouldn’t surprise me if various tragedies occured before a belated realistion that balance is needed, ultimately breaks through.
Yes, it would be nice if the situation were resolved with a series of tragedic tremors rather than one big Richter 9.
================
andy – this reminds me of how (US) liberals have infiltrated organizations throughout the US. From the Girl Scouts to the League of Women Voters to AARP. Liberals are executing their agenda from positions of power within many organizations, not the least of which being government workers in administrations; Federal, state, and local.
And, BTW, that was a great summary, Andy.
Here’s another summary (H/T Nick Stokes):
Elderly retired professor joined GWPF.
His friends didn’t like it.
He left.
THE END.
Willard, I really don’t think you have the children’s fiction market cracked. You have to have aliens and drama and context :) This might work better:
One day an elderly retired professor thought he would do some good with his deep knowledge, and joined a club that liked to test and question whether all the things that the BBC and the newspapers said, especially about our climate, were true.
“I can help the GWPF club see what’s likely right and what’s likely not,” he thought, “I know stuff about the climate.”
“No!” screamed his friends.
“You suck!” yelled his relatives.
“I’m never going to play with you again!” said his best friend.
“But why?” asked the professor, bewildered.
“Because everyone knows that the GWPF clubbers are alien monsters in disguise!” they all chorused.
So with shaking hands and a tear in his eye, the professor wrote a letter to say he was leaving the club. He wasn’t upset at nearly being eaten, he was upset because he knew the club members were not monsters, and in fact that there was no such thing as alien monsters. Yet his friends and family believed this beyond all question, and he was so hurt by them he felt he should do what they said, otherwise he would end up being very very lonely.
Probably not the end…
Sorry Willard, I should direct that story to Nick Stokes as the original you put up was his.
Good story, Andy.
I’d add:
> I can help the GWPF club see what’s likely right and what’s likely not. I already discussed with Nigel and we agree to help raise funds for one-way tickets to GDR or North Korea we could offer to socialists non-enlightened like we both are [1].
My inspiration comes from Lennart’s contributions in Swedish blogs like The Climate Scam. See also
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/laffaire-bengtsson.html
To portray Lennart like Innocence Abused might be suboptimal.
willard (@nevaudit) | May 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
“To portray Lennart like Innocence Abused might be suboptimal.”
Possibly. But it is much more suboptimal to pretend, a la Nick’s story, that there isn’t a significant issue here for the climate science (and wider climate involved) community.
Well, well. I’ve landed in moderation at Stevie Mac’s crib.
LYSENKO!!!!1!! STALINISM!!!!1!!!1 MCCARTHYISM1!!!!!!!!!1 REIGN OF TERROR!1!!!!!!!!
So to pay my respects to my much beloved “skeptics,” who deplore McCarthyism and Lysenkoism and the silencing of critics, who are “alarmed” about a “reign of terror,” and of course, about the despots at RealClimate who “censor” their comments and who are “attacking free speech,” I will repost my comment here.
I know that in the name of freedom, apple pie, truth, the American way, and all that is good and right in the world, indeed, in the name of fighting against tyranny and oppression wherever they might raise their ugly heads, on the chance that my comment will not pass Stevie Mac’s “gate keeping” and “peer review” I will repost here so my much beloved “skeptics” will not be deprived at the opportunity to read what I had to say (on a rather ironic topic).
I’m also struck by a larger, and quite beautiful irony here. A certain group of “skeptics” argue quite adamantly that peer review is fundamentally flawed – with a logical conclusion that the process is actually a mechanism that produces inferior results, as it stifles creativity and innovation. That group of “skeptics” usually links peer review to another concept that they see as fundamentally flawed: the notion that “consensus” is of value to the scientific process. They often argue that the notion of “consensus” is fundamentally unscientific, that it corrupts the scientific process.
And yet, we can think of many examples where those same “skeptics” point over and over to the relatively few peer reviewed papers that they believe is consistent with their “skepticism,” as if somehow, they should be an indication of the validity of their views on climate change. It’s a fascinating logic.
And here we have a similar process going on. So peer review = pal review. This is an article of faith among many “skeptics.” Peer review = “gatekeeping.” It = a process by which “skeptics” are silenced. It = a process by which we see the modern day equivalent of McCarthyism and Lysenkoism and Sandinistas and Naz*sm and it is a “reign of terror” taking place before our very eyes.
But yet there is so much focus on whether the peer review criticisms of a particular paper are scientifically valid. Why would you focus on whether a process that you are convinced is fundamentally flawed, which is inherently unscientific, which inevitably produces inferior quality work, and which in fact only serves to advance a fallacious view of the very workings of the scientific process, has been in error in a particular case? It is a fascinating logic.
It reminds me of when “skeptics” spend gobs of time arguing about the precise % of the prevalence of view of climate scientists who agree that ACO2 has a predominating influence on long-term climate changes, right after they’ve just argued that the very notion of consensus is irrelevant, and in fact antithetical to the scientific method. It’s a fascinating logic.
If you want want to make a cogent argument
You should cite actual people.
Okay…
Is it possible that some global warming alarmists –like for instance, Michael Mann — are in possession of an outer-worldly intelligence that our science is incapable of comprehending?
Perhaps they’re afraid of the Singularity?
The threading broken? This is probably one post where a demonstration of intemperance would be instructive.
Qoi moi? Rarely have we seen such tendentious verbosity. Quasimodo in a thong arguing from a sense of outrage that they should be considered less than bastions of moral rectitude and intellectual rigour. All of the old canards dusted off – the feigned laughter tinged with the desperation of a crumbling battlement – circling the clown cars.
The sarcasm is getting ludicrously thin – prognostications falling away to be replaced by frantic post hoc rationalization and outright denial in the psychological sense – the personality investment in an errant psychological construct is bust. This is the stage before the Kool-Aid. If they had any actual power and influence it would be internment for deniers at UNtopia, Minnesota.
Consensus is not science. Climate is not the average of weather. Climate is an emergent property of a dynamically complex system. This is a new idea that explains much of the behaviour of the system and allows at least decadal prediction. This last is the only measure of science that has any meaning. Noisy posturing by the collective not so much.
Not necessary to possess other-worldly intelligence to understand the very clear effects of the HCV. More likely is it that certain fake-skeptics possess other-worldly self-imposed ingnorance in order to discount those clear effects on the energy gains in the climate system.
Rgates
I was at that climate conference I told you about and a couple of interesting things came out in the Q and A. One of them about ocean temperatures. Are you interested?
Tonyb
Tony,
Always interested in any research to do with assessment of net energy in the climate system and certainly oceans are the biggest reservoir of climate energy.
Judith has my private email and she is free to share it with you if you want to present this away from this blog.
Rgates
No, it’s relatively short. I’ll write it out in the next hour but keep your eyes open as the nesting seems to have gone awry.
Tonyb
Rgates
The conference contained many of the great and the good. The ipcc summary for policy makers was quoted extensively and the audience certainly brought out a political edge from some of the speakers In the call for greater Political action to prevent cagw.
The pause in global land temperatures was accepted and the energy in the ocean was discussed.
The ipcc was quoted that it is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009 . Sufficient observations were available for the period 1992 to 2005 to enable a global assessment of temperature change below 2000 m. There were likely no significant observed temperature trends between 2000 and 3000 metres for this period. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 metres to the bottom for this period. With the largest warming observed in the southern ocean.
Prof stocker confirmed this that there was such small temperature changes below 2000 metres that we do not have the technology available to measure it and come up with an accurate picture.
Subsequent clarification indicated that oceanic temperatures Changes Accounted for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 withit t being virtually certain that the upper ocean from 0 to 700m warmed in this period and this warming has almost certainly been going on since the 1870’s
Ocean heat content within this level probably increased more slowly during 2003 to 2010 than in the previous 10 years.
So there were various take home messages. The first being of a slowing down in temperature rise. The second being that the warming has been gong on for 140 years or more and thirdly That below 2000 metres any increase was too small to be measured. So the warming that is happening is mostly in the upper ocean but that considerable uncertainties remained as to whether it is continuing or that it is happening at depth
One of the panel answered my question as to why , bearing in mind we have Been warmer than today and colder than today, that natural variability shouldn’t be considered as the major driver rather than co2
I won’t embarrass the professor who answered this But suffice to say that immediately the conference ended a paleotologist came up to me and apologised for the poor answer.
Subsequent private conversations with the met office intriguingly demonstrated that natural variability is not discounted as being the major signal but I would hazard a bet this would never be repeated in public.
I think I mentioned to you that I was an ‘expert reviewer ‘ for the draft of ar5 and that their claims of warming in the abyssal ocean could never be backed up with actual research papers despite my requesting them. You subsequently came up with the Purkiss paper.
As far as I can see it is very much a moot pont as to whether any warming is finding its way below the upper ocean levels and data over the last few years, where it exists, is somewhat ambiguous.
Tonyb
When will the measureless heat coalesce and emerge to consume the Earth like a fiery Phoenix?
Thank you for this summary Tony. It is not dissimilar to other summaries ocean heat content that I have seen. While the data on ocean heat content is far from complete, it is so much better than just 10 or 15 years ago. What I look at is the sum total of the body of data- not just ocean heat but the effects of that energy such as the rapid changes going on in the cryosphere.
Regarding the rise in ocean heat since the 1870’s– that corresponds with the time most ocean experts would posit as the end of the LIA as far as the ocean were concerned.
Anyway, thanks again for asking these questions. Ocean heat content is absolutely key to understanding the effects of the HCV.
RGates
Yes, I was interested in the relative uncertainty of actual heat content below the upper ocean and that the increase seems to have levelled off in recent years and perhaps wasn’t as great as in the previous decade.
As the meeting broke up I asked why only data to 2010 (at the latest) was included and was told it was somewhat contradictory.
Duh, the energy’s gone into the ocean, remember? [ R Gates passim].
The atmosphere is useless as to conveying any meaning [R Gates passim].
Hence a. there is no extra energy to do anything to the cryosphere and b. if it did have rapid changes [R Gates passim] says it means nothing cause its not important like the ocean.
pease try to stay consistent
While the data on ocean heat content is far from complete, that is one way of putting it . Another way is to say given that there is little data for majority of deep ocean , and not much for the rest , you can claim all types of things can be hiding in it such has heat . Knowing you cannot be proved wrong.
That would explain a lot.
“That would explain a lot” is a response to Wagathon above.
Possession of an outer-worldly intelligence means we must at least consider the possibility that Michael Mann was visited by aliens and knows things about weather and ultimately — our future climate — that we will never comprehend.
It happens to everyone on occasion. It happened to me a couple of times on Wednesday.
You are not as special as you think.
You haven’t been stopped from posting at CA, you landed in moderation, which almost everyone not a regular lands.
You brought it upon yourself – you bring nothing of substance to to the table but you are the true definition of a “troll”…
Joshua – it Is not just peer review, it Is editorial control of scientific literature and allocation of grants as well. You non-skeptics control all that and any adverse opinions are simply stopped in their tracks. Let me ask you this: if a publishing house puts out a journal called Nature Climate Change that publishes trash about imaginary global warming can the parent journal be any different? What do you think are the chances that Nature will publish anything against the alleged existence of AGW?
“What do you think are the chances that Nature will publish anything against the alleged existence of AGW?”
This is the classic Mosher’s Dilema:
If you publically state that “C02 makes it warmer”
what is the likelihood the analysis you present of teh data is going to say otherwise?
Andrew