by Judith Curry
Along with Richard Lindzen joining the Cato Institute, Bengtsson now gives us two examples of ‘skeptical’ scientists becoming associated with political advocacy groups, and zero examples of mainstream climate scientists joining political organizations. Who is it that’s politicizing science? – Dana Nuccitelli
I spotted this article in The Guardian: The Times Has Fallen for an Unfounded Climate Change Conspiracy. The ‘zero examples of mainstream climate scientists joining political organizations‘ raised my hackles.
The Wikipedia defines a political organization as:
A political organization is any entity that is involved in the political process.
Political organization including political institution, political parties, political groups- e.g. advocacy groups, Interest groups etc.
‘Political organization’ is perhaps not the best descriptor of organizations like CATO and GWPF; I think they really meant advocacy groups. But in the same category (whatever you call it), we would surely include organizations such as Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, Citizens Climate Lobby, Audubon Society, Pacific Institute, Nature Conservancy, etc.
I did a quick search for names of climate scientists (broadly defined) serving on Boards of green advocacy groups. I’m sure someone like Donna LaFramboise could do a much more thorough job, but here is what I came up with for a starter:
Environmental Defense Fund
William Chameides, from the Wikipedia:
In 2005, he left Georgia Tech to become the chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. Chameides said he made this decision because he wanted to “…do more to advance the cause of good environmental stewardship.” In 2011, Chameides was the vice-chair of a report issued by the United States National Research Council entitled “America’s Climate Choices.”
Michael Oppenheimer, from the Wikipedia:
Oppenheimer joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a non-governmental, environmental organization, where he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program. He continues to serve as a science advisor to EDF. Oppenheimer is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, serving recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and now as a coordinating lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report as well as a Special Report on climate extremes and disasters. Oppenheimer has been a member of several panels of the National Academy of Sciences and is now a member of the National Academies’ Board on Energy and Environmental Studies. He is also a winner of the 2010 Heinz Award and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Union of Concerned Scientists – Board Members
James J. McCarthy (chair) is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past director of Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. His research and teaching focus on ocean processes and climate. He was the founding editor of the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, has participated in several studies on climate change, and has served as the head of an IPCC Working Group and as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2008. (See full bio.)
Mario J. Molina is a professor at the University of California–San Diego and president of the Mario Molina Center for Strategic Studies in Energy and the Environment. He is currently serving on the U.S. President’s Committee of Advisors in Science and Technology, and is a member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Molina and two colleagues shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their research on the depletion of stratospheric ozone.
Citizens Climate Lobby Advisory Council
James Hansen. When I first became alarmed by the deteriorating climate, I saw a quote by Dr. James E. Hansen, “If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead.” Of course that describes exactly what Citizens Climate Lobby is about. I put the quote on our first brochure. Dr. Hansen is the planet’s great hero. He has all the credentials one could ask for in a leader on the climate. But here’s the big thing, he doesn’t let the credentials and his position stop him from saying the truth, risking everything. His is a clear voice that we heard way across the country in San Diego. And he is constant. He doesn’t go away. He’s been saying the truth for decades, out loud, in the scientific and popular publications and in Congress. He has been a speaker on our National Call and at our International Conference.
Katherine Hayhoe. Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist who studies climate change. An expert reviewer for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, her life’s work has been dedicated to discovering and communicating the realities of a changing climate to those who will be affected most by it. As an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, Katharine develops new ways to quantify the potential impacts of human activities at the regional scale. Together with her husband Andrew Farley, lead teaching pastor of Ecclesia, she wrote “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”, a book that untangles the complex science and tackles many long-held misconceptions about global warming. Her work as a climate change evangelist has been featured in the PBS documentary series, The Secret Life of Scientists and in articles including True Believer that appeared in On Earth magazine in 2012 and Spreading the global warming gospel that appeared in the LA Times in 2011. In 2012 she was named one of Christianity Today’s 50 Women to Watch. JC note: Katherine Hayhoe recently made a splash as the star of Years of Living Dangerously.
Daniel Kammen. Dr. Daniel Kammen is Director of Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, professor in the Energy and Resources group, Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.He is the class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy at the University of California, Berkeley and was appointed the first Environmental and Climate Partnership for the Americas (ECPA) Fellow by Secretary of State Hilary R. Clinton in April 2010. Dr. Kammen served as the World Bank Group’s Chief Technical Specialist for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. JC note: Daniel Kammen was the editor for Environmental Research Letters that rejected Bengtsson’s paper.
Nature Conservancy Science Council
Jonathan Foley is the director of the Institute on the Environment (IonE) at the University of the Minnesota, where he is a professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. Recent winner of the Heinz Award; contributor to the IPCC.
Climate Institute – Board of Advisors
Dr. Andre Berger
G. Lemaitre Lovain-LaNeuve, Belgium
Director, Inst. d’Astronomie et Geophys
Dr. R. K. Pachauri
New Delhi, India
Director, The Energy and Resources Institute
Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Graeme Pearman
Victoria, Australia
Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO
Dr. A. Barrie Pittock
Victoria, Australia
Author and Former Director, Climate Impact Group, CSIRO
Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig
New York, USA
Senior Scientist, GISS
Dr. Georgi Golitsyn
Moscow, Russia
Academician, Institute for Atmospheric Physics
Audubon Society – Board of Directors
Terry L. Root, of Stanford, California, is a Senior Fellow in Woods Institute for the Environment and Professor by Courtesy in Biology at Stanford University. She was a Lead Author, focusing on biological impacts, on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, the latter of which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with Vice President Gore. She is a Review Editor for the fifth assessment report. Her research, beginning with her pioneering large-scale research examining continent-wide ranges and densities of wintering North American birds using National Audubon’s Christmas Bird Count Data, focuses on large-scale ecological consequences of climate disruption. Dr. Root is on the board of Defenders of Wildlife and numerous science advisory boards.
Pacific Institute – President
Peter Gleick, from the Wikipedia: Peter H. Gleick is an American scientist working on issues related to the environment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity, with a focus on global freshwater challenges.In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources, the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. JC note: in case you missed it, Peter Gleick committed a major lapse of ethics in the Heartland affair [here and here].
Michael Mann
Since Michael Mann has been so vocal on the Bengtsson issue (tweets and HuffPo), I checked to see if Mann was involved with any advocacy groups. On Michael Mann’s c.v., he lists:
- Science Advisory Board Member, Climate Change Communication Network, 2010-
- Science advisor for Climate Communication, 2011-
- Advisory Board, OurEarth.org, 2008-
- Science Advisory Council, 1Sky, 2008-
I could not find anything on the first two, but OurEarth.org and 1Sky are definitely advocacy groups. JC note: On a tweet yesterday, I asked Mann: Were you one of the U.S. scientists that pressured Bengtsson to resign from the GWPF? No answer yet; I’m not holding my breath.
JC reflections
I’m sure there are many that I missed, but this quick compilation points out that Abraham and Nuccitelli were mistaken in the Guardian article – participation of leading climate scientists in green advocacy groups is substantial.
So, do I see any problems with academic scientists serving in advisory roles for advocacy groups? Problems arise when a scientist puts ‘the cause’ above scientific integrity – Peter Gleick is the poster boy for this one. If a scientist receives funding from an advocacy group, then this needs complete disclosure (i.e. if the funding paid for the research, or if the funding is a significant portion of the scientist’s income). But forever tarring an individual scientist for receiving a small amount of travel funds to attend an event funded by an advocacy group (or big oil or whoever) is unjustified (note: Lindzen has been tarred in this way).
Do I see a problem with scientist who are advocates for policies related to their research as serving in capacities such as journal editor? Yes. Journal editors need to be unbiased, as well as appear to be unbiased.
Do I see a problem with scientist-advocates participating as lead authors in the IPCC? The IPCC says that it does not view this as a problem. Well, it might not be a problem if there is some sort of balance from advocacy groups or energy companies on the opposing side of the policy debate (which there hasn’t been). Not including energy companies in developing emissions scenarios has been a huge mistake, IMO, from the perspective of both the scientific content as well as the politics.
So, in this light, why is Bengtsson under such pressure? It surely is not because academic scientists are expected to avoid any such affiliations. Gavin Schmidt summed it up this way: Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community. Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.
Gavin succinctly points to the hypocrisy of climate scientists who are green policy advocates – it is ok to join an advocacy group on one ‘side’ but not the other. Well, it is possible that it is not hypocrisy but rather extreme naiveté, thinking that ‘science demands’ the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology.
Is a scientist’s politics or policy preferences easily inferred from their affiliation with an advocacy group? In principle – no, in practice- probably. A scientist’s politics should be irrelevant to their science; if this is not the case, then the scientist’s research deserves extra scrutiny and a certain segment of the population (including other scientists) will distrust that scientist and be pre-disposed to reject their scientific research. Objecting to all scientists who are affiliated with advocacy groups is an intellectually consistent position that is defensible; objecting to scientists affiliated only with advocacy groups of a certain policy persuasion is defensible only from the perspective of an advocate. I do not regard the perspectives of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann on this to be objectively defensible.
Which brings us back to the question asked by Nuccitelli:
Who is it that’s politicizing science?
I don’t think the answer to this question is ‘Lindzen and Bengtsson’.
“Do I see a problem with scientist-advocates participating as lead authors in the IPCC? The IPCC says that it does not view this as a problem.”
Right, as long as it’s the proper advocacy groups (as you point out Judith).
Of course the IPCC amounts to a political advocacy group in itself.
We’ve seen the polls and we know how believers and skeptics sort out along the political divide. Global warming alarmists talk about a ‘consensus’ as if it refers to a majority of scientists when what they really means is CAGW is an opinion shared by a majority of Democrat party voters.
Statist v. Non-Statist, Transnationalists v. the Not. But think of the state they’ll be in if the first prevail. Metropolis-1927. A choo choo, a chugga chugga choo choo.
============
SPIEGEL ONLINE: In the past, you have complained about what you described as a strong tendency towards politicization in climate research. Why have you now joined an organization that is inherently political in nature?
Bengtsson: Throughout my life, I have been fascinated by predictability and frustrated by our inability to predict. I don’t believe it makes sense for our generation to believe or pretend that we can solve the problems of the future because do not understand what these problems will be. Just do this thought experiment: Imagine you’re in month of May 1914, and try to work out a plan of action for the next 100 years! Hardly anything will make sense.
Advocacy, Activism??
As I noted below, the entire shape, direction and processes of UNFCCC => IPCC => (also USA’s NCAs)
turns out to have an activist “Noble Cause” conception.
The advocacy cum activism organizations are built into the very DNA of the UNFCCC-IPCC
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/#comment-562125
A happy triumvirate of scientist activists turn out to have their organizations as the THREE core founding entities:
(1) Michael Oppenheimer et al., Environmental Defense Fund
(2) John Holdren et al., Woods Hole Research Center
(3) Paul Ehrlich et al. Beijer Institute
When the very founding and direction of UNFCCC – IPCC has been steered by these activist scientists, it becomes a moot question to ask, where is the advocacy and activism in the IPCC process?? They are built in as foundational assumptions, goals, and requirements.
re: MIchael Oppenheimer and friends at EDF, this is interesting.
I’m not questioning their right to lobby and be activists as they see fit, I’m merely noting the “interesting” ties from pre-foundings of UNFCCC/IPCC to lobbying for activist priorities in Rio-to-Kyoto accords:
[emphasis added]
Barbra Streisand provided more than $750,000 to support Oppenheimer/Environmental Defense Fund work on Rio-to-Kyoto lobbying
activist? biased?? Here are a couple of the figures from Oppenheimer & co. selling the creation of what became UNFCCC and IPCC.
(first figure is 3 ranges of projected global temps., lower figure is 3 ranges of projected sea level rise)
Oppenheimer et al. 1987, figures on pp. 4-5
[the salvation of the “low” scenario was only if govts agreed to take drastic actions promptly in late ’80s/early ’90s]
btw, speaking of activist scientists, compare and contrast to Bengtsson, Peter Gleick is listed as one of the 1987 workshop participants!
(Appendix I, p.44)
no wonder he goes nuts over this stuff, it really is his life’s work and he takes all dissent or opposition quite …. personally …. and seriously.
Q: What do you call a 1000 AGW scientists at the bottom of ocean looking for the the missing heat ?
A: Nuts !
Anything the state is involved in is political by definition. Gubbermint is one giant advocacy group.
Andrew
+1000,000,000
As JoNova has shown, it’s an iron-triad of your hard won dollars being directed by politicians to fund “the right” climate advocates, I mean scientists, who in turn provide pal-reviewed papers published by the closed-ended Church of Global Climate Armageddon that will tolerate no dissenters, I mean, unbiased climate science who’s opinion and advocacy is submitted via a leftist state-controlled media, sorry, I mean, the mainstream media who influence the useful idiots, sorry, I mean the free-thinking green grassroots advocates, who donate further money to support the political positions of their politicians who give them free food stamps and cell-phones paid for with your hard earned tax dollars… but hey, what could possibly go wrong?
The politicization of science began back in the 1980s as this amazingly candid column by Oppenheimer from 2007 documents:
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/
Notice how proud he is of flim-flamming the Reagan Administration. It seems to me this column is proof positive that the world-wide political campaign began even before most of the papers that “prove” the phenomenon of global warming had been conceived.
thx, fascinating, so possibly the Bush, Sr. administration thought they could finesse Oppenheimer, WHRI, et al. but ended up out-maneuvered….. still politics all the way down!
AAAG! Aptly named. Enough to bring technicolor speech.
================
sorry, Reagan. admin., but I was thinking of what followed in the years 1989-90 and 1991-92 when balls were already set in motion
presumably the rapid expansion of scientist support from Oppenheimer’s initial small group was driven more than a little bit by pushing the scenarios of global surface temp. increases in range of 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE as in Oppenheimer et al. (1987)
It would be difficult for many scientists, govt and UN officials, or churnalists to remain calm and reasonable in the face of such projections thrown about by people who claimed to have all the latest, greatest model projections of the era
Michael Oppenheimer might enjoy that fantasy that his clique pulled one over on the Reagan admin. but in fact the “Reagan Admin.” for their purposes was primarily Secretary of State George Shultz, who had already been a strong supporter of the Montreal Protocol and considered action via the proposed IPCC as an “insurance policy” against the extreme scenarios…. so something very much like the “Precautionary Principle” operated for Shultz and there was no difficulty for Oppenheimer & co. to get support from the US State Dept.
Shultz was a solid supporter of the process leading to UNFCCC and IPCC, but likely did not expect the activist wing to become so dominant. Only in that latter sense did Oppenheimer & co. pull one over on Shultz et al.
What Shultz probably did expect was that grown-ups would prevail, and he did not expect the activist core to take over. Still, Shultz (as in his recent support for James Hansen et al. with the Citizens Climate Lobby) was hardly an obstacle for Oppenheimer et al.
In his article about the lifetime Leftist politician Al Gore and global warming (‘Let Us Prey,’ Fall 2007 Range Magazine), author Tim Findley talks about the global warming heretic, as follows:
Very powerful middle paragraph there. Spread it wide.
=========
Gore’s smear amounts to the first example of McCarthyism aimed at the first CAGW heretic. No one can pretend to know how Lennart Bengtsson was made to feel. Bengtsson perhaps feels considerable more trepidation than we may ever fully appreciate –e.g., “I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of…” [the propaganda machine of WWII Germany].
Why is Bengtsson under pressure? Because he’s a climate modeler who’s seen the light that models at present are not useful for policy. His rejected paper demonstrates that they’re fantasy. He must be neutralized.
But I love the push to deny that climate science is politicized. The next step is for politics to deny that it has been scientized. Katie, bar the door.
================
This “global warming” thing is akin to Keynesian economics, in that it is a beautiful funding rationale for anything and everything.
In both cases, the politicians claim what they think are the claims (ie, “Stimulate the Economy”), while scarcely having a fundamental knowledge of the academics behind it. In both cases, there is said to be a “multiplier” but no one really can prove any given number. Both are used to get huge amounts of money. Neither can be proven or dis-proven in the amount of time it takes for the public to remember what was said in debate.
So yea, this “global warming” thing was a money grab all along, even if it might’ve started out honestly. Michael Mann is a rock star at Penn State ’cause he brings in money, NOT because of his work. And yeah, if they can get more money / power out of being a part of advocacy groups, isn’t that all the better for them?
@ geek49203
As you point out, ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change’ is not the problem, it is the solution.
And the problem? How to concentrate power and money in the hands of the ‘progressives (Democrats/liberals/socialists/Marxists/communists/greens/politically correct euphemism du jour)’.
And a huge and growing success it has been in achieving just that.
Nice parallel, beautiful and useful. Must be true then.
=========
I have to give you kudos on that post. The “multiplier” has irritated me for years. Not only can you not put a number on it, you can not prove that it even exists as a true factor.
geek49203 | May 20, 2014 at 10:31 am |
This “global warming” thing is akin to Keynesian economics…
Similar. Stimulus spending is the control knob.Then it comes down to dialing in the correct number to create whatever the goal is. Controlling a large system of many people who may not all react in a uniform and predictable way.
geek, Larry, Ragnaar: Robert Barro is probably the most expert on the multiplier. Acknowledging difficulties with data, his best estimate is around 0.6 – that is, for every dollar of government “stimulus,” we get about 60 cents of value. That is, stimulus spending is wealth-destroying (as I pointed out in the Australian media at the onset of the GFC, unfortunately to no avail). In general, every dollar of tax-funded government funding provides about 80 cents of benefits (this has been supported by many studies in many countries over many periods) (no, no citations to hand), so that stimulus spending merely exaggerates the problem.
… exacerbates the problem.
Faustino, what’s striking about Australia’s recent flirt with Keynesian stimulus is that those praising its efficacy forget to mention what may well have been the sharpest mining boom in anybody’s history, beginning right around the time we began installing those disintegrating Chinese batts to “save” our economy with “green” jobs. Not like me to believe anybody’s stats or graphs, but this one is hard to argue with:
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=iron-ore&months=120
Then there’s all that coal. Can’t make steel without lots of metallurgical coal, and guess who’s been exporting masses of that?
Those who believe that Keynes and Labor saved Oz from the GFC have a lot to ignore. Actually, they’d make great climate activists – but I’m sure GetUp are already on to it.
Are people still taking what Abrahams and Nuccitelli write in the Guardian seriously? I gave up some time ago.
Judith –
How do you assess the ethics of Bengtsson making the reviewer’s comments public?
Presumably, the reviewers did not write their views that that expectation. Is it ethical for Bengstoon to take it upon himself to make the decision for them as to whether their review should be made public?
Keep in mind, the question of whether a confidential review process is the best research methology is a separate question. If Bengtsson is participating in the peer review process, and submitting papers for peer review, doesn’t he have some obligation to abide by the principles of that methodology?
—————–
–> “So, do I see any problems with academic scientists serving in advisory roles for advocacy groups? No. Problems arise when a scientist puts ‘the cause’ above scientific integrity.”
So just to get this right – you have now morphed from scientists should not advocate for policies to scientists can advocate as long as it is responsible advocacy (based on your subjective determination of what is and isn’t responsible0 to scientists can advocate as long as they elevate what they consider to be important above ethics.
And, of course, you reserve the right to determine what is and isn’t ethical.
Selective reasoning is….er….selective, Judith.
Sorry – substitute “scientific integrity” for “ethics.”
Five in a row in any direction and you win, Joshua.
=============
So what if he made anonymous comments public? Your ethical sensitivity seems a bubble off.
And Joshie, old boy, you’ve set up another of your glorious ad hominem arguments. JC did not say anything about “responsible advocacy,” that’s your fabrication. No one with a lick of sense can see a conflict between her past statement and her suggesting that scientists could advise advocacy groups. Whoops! I guess I see your problem.
“How do you assess the ethics of Bengtsson making the reviewer’s comments public? ” He didn’t make the comments public, the publisher (IOP) published the comments in full. Selective reasoning, eh?
Hi John –
–> “Policy advocacy by scientists can in principle be done effectively and responsibly. In practice, too many scientists, and worse yet professional societies, are conducting their advocacy in a manner that is neither effective or responsible.
JC advice to scientist-advocates: take some time to understand the pitfalls of advocacy, learn about the policy process, and make sure you understand what is considered responsible advocacy.”
–> “He didn’t make the comments public, the publisher (IOP) published the comments in full. Selective reasoning, eh?”
The publisher checked with the reviewer first.
Where did The Times and the GWPF get their quotes from the review if not from Bengtsson?
Joshua
Who published the reviewers comments?
please provide a link
this is be fun.
moshe, my guess it’s in a Hitler bunker video.
============
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
Heh, I was close. It’s from a bunker.
=========
ERL is astonished that the Times would publish dangerous stuff like this. Hysterical little alarmist clowns.
Wheeeeeeerrres’ joshie? Isn’t he going to give us a very casual “my bad” on his stupendous and embarrassing little joshie booper du pour?
What was the score on the clock when it came to pin down Joshua’s ethics thoughts on Peter Gleick subterfuge regarding the Heartland Institute; and further more on his current thoughts on Gleick being a supposed higher-up in the science ethics world.
You would expect him to be rather consistent.
Joshua,
Obsessive ankle-biting is, er, obsessive…..
…. and so tedious …..
I hope that you and Michael and FOMT are paid for your activities here …. otherwise you have a most peculiar and ineffective hobby.
“especially spectacular, flop sweat inducing”
Yes, Joshua has been overwrought recently, meaning more overwrought than he has been historically.
Andrew
Curious on why a reviewer’s comments would not be available to the public. And if the name of the reviewer is not associated with the review comments, why would anyone have a problem with it? If you are asked to review a paper for publication, shouldn’t your comments also be in the public domain?
“I hope that you and Michael and FOMT are paid for your activities here ….”
They get very Big Checks…from Big Oil.
The second referee states that it is inappropriate to use K/(W/m2) instead of K , as units for the climate sensitivity.
This is a bit odd as this is widely used, like in Shaviv 2005
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf
I get the feeling that not defining what words actually mean in Climate Science is a bit of a problem when it comes to understanding what publications mean.
Judith writes: “…this quick compilation points out that Abraham and Nuccitelli were mistaken in the Guardian article…”
Nothing new there.
Not just mistaken but bombastically, propagandistically, deceitful. Someone above asked why even keep up with their output. It’s broadcasts from the Borg, fella.
==========
Give us a break.
The difference between GWPF and others that Judith listed is that the others are up front and clear about their purposes.
PR/propaganda groups like GWPF appeal to notions of objectivity and avoidance of bias to conceal a predetermined agenda. Taking a position isn’t an issue, it’s the attempt at deception is what makes them unethical, and anyone stupid enough to align themselves with them, accepts deceptive practices as valid.
This is just more silly ‘false balance’.
I guess the Tobacco Institute was just an advocacy group hoping for the best public policy on tobacco.
So, you approve of CATO, CEI, etc. – but not GWPF? Or do you disapprove generally of any advocacy group that isn’t green?
He and several others ride in special buses. They are longer than yours or mine, and much better constructed.
===========
As i said, I’ve got no problems with advocacy, any advocacy – honest, up front, direct.
It’s the insidious and deceptive practices that proclaim disinterest, while working assiduously for a particular outcome, that cross the line into unethical behaviour.
That’s propaganda.
Scientist who freely choose to join such groups, do so at the risk of their reputation, and may find others don’t want any association of that kind.
Michael: “it’s the attempt at deception is what makes them [GWPF] unethical” Care to give some evidence or is it just your gut feeling?
See? It’s a long, long, bus.
==================
Michael, “Scientist who freely choose to join such groups, do so at the risk of their reputation” Same is true for those who join the IPCC.
Bernd,
You’re kidding, right??
Have you missed the whole Bengtsson story?
Did you miss how the GWPF just trashed poor old Lenny’s reputation for the sake of some self-serving headlines?
This is their motto ‘ “Restoring Balance and Trust to the Climate Debate”.
Ha!
Which they did by dishing up a load of self-serving tripe to a newspaper about how poor Lenny was a victim of the evil consensus
That this steaming pile of BS ended up on the front page of a newspaper, forced the journal to release the usually confidential referee reports.
Oh well, GWPF got their PR splash, poor Lenny was just collateral damage.
Feel the trust!
And of course they’re at it again, trying to keep the PR momentum flowing- now they’ve got the dill from the hill writing some mealy-mouthed BS about “the political justification given for rejecting his [LBs’] work” etc etc.
Dishonest.
Deceptive.
Unethical.
That’s GWPF.
Michael’s bus stretches over the horizon.
=========
So is your position that Michael Mann doesn’t attempt to “conceal a pre-determined agenda?” That Michael Mann is upfront and honest about his agenda?
If the goal of GWPF is to clarify, improve, and demand more from climate science in the way of irrefutable proofs, I don’t see how that constitutes a “concealed agenda.”
The goal seems to me to contest the ridiculous assertion that “the science is settled.” They don’t conceal that.
potter,
GWPF was even dishonest in it’s inception – they claimed to be an ‘educational charity’ for tax purposes.
The law may be finally catching up with them; as a charity they are required to make claims that factual, or with an evidentiary basis and to not engage in political advocacy.
Would be fitting to see them sanctioned for making false claims and political advocacy.
Of note in relation to the above, Judith sees GWPF as an advocacy group.
This is in violation of their registered status as an ‘educational charity’.
So even Judith can see that GWPF is fundamentally deceitful and dishonest.
And that’s the difference between them and all the other groups that Judith listed in her post.
Apparently the legal distinction for a charitable group is whether or not you are lobbying (not necessarily whether you are involved in advocacy).
Ah, tobacco. What took you so long to bring that up, mikey? Is GWPF funded by Big Tobacco?
Mikey, please explain what you mean by “silly false balance”. The major media is 97.8% controlled by your lot and everyday bombards us with stories of the certainty of this melting or that burning up. Yet you want to eradicate dissent down to the last woman and child. Are you people still working on that exploding heads thing? Why don’t you clowns get serious and admit that the science is not settled? Until you do that you are not likely to be credible Chicken Littles. Check latest Gallop poll: virtually nobody sees climate change as a big problem. Look it up. I am no longer providing links.
The pause is killing the cause.
Please disregard my last comment above. Put it in the wrong place.
Michael: how does one determine upfrontness and honesty? Are we saying that sincerity is not something in the eye of the beholder. The very idea that you think that kind of test can be adequately applied here shows your own bias. You are biased in favor of government and other bodies taxing or restricting speech if you don’t like it.
Political speech should not be abridged by the government or it’s tax enforcers. It’s very similar to the argument over campaign financing where the IRS is now apparently in charge of determining which groups get to collect money to run ads on tv based on their tax status. The IRS scandal in this country proves that this is not something that should be left up to the people in power who are using agencies they oversee to discriminate against political groups they disagree with.
I have not followed GWPF activities, but taking a rapid survey of their activities now (their reports and press releases since inception), it is absurd and dishonest to characterize the as deceptive OR as a “campaigning” group in the context of UK law.
Yes, they “advocate” in a very wide, loose sense of seeking to introduce more perspectives on climate related policies.
But to characterize their activity as unethical, never mind illegal or crimnal, is itself an unethical and dishonest charge.
The only item with any specific advocacy that I could see (admittedly I was only surveying titles) is a paper by Ross McKittrick which professes to advocate a specific tax policy with its analysis. Even this item seems to be well within the bounds of countless academic papers in economics, political science, public policy, etc.
http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-proposes-cost-effective-climate-policy-key-scientific-uncertainties/
The vast bulk of their output certainly aims to be “educational” from within the range of views represented by people associated with the GWPF.
“Advocacy” of a broadly different set of perspectives, for sure. But what is the evidence for any “campaigning” or “lobbying” to date??
Quite a contrast with such US based groups as EDF, UCS, Sierra Club, etc. etc.
To be sure, the GWPF has just announced (May 9, 2014) its intention to form a campaigning organization for the first time:
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-warming-policy-foundation-to-establish-campaigning-arm/
In this they are merely following the well-trodden path of organizational evolution demonstrated by so many progressive-approved organizations in both UK and USA.
Absent any actual evidence of misdeeds by GWPF, the virulent attacks here from some of the usual suspects are vicious, dishonest, yes…. unethical.
The GWPF might fool right wing tabloid readers, but intelligent people, especially those in the field the GWPF is out to attack, will see through what they are and what they are doing.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread, what you don’t see is how many scientists come across the output of the GWPF in the media and see right through the inaccuracies to the propaganda underlying it. And if you saw such an event would you not pass it on to colleagues “wow look at this!”
No wonder the reaction to a scientist joining such an organization.
An example of bad faith by the way would be attacking a scientific expedition for getting stuck in Antarctic sea ice and making up a false meme that they had expected it all to have melted. Then hammering the story for weeks. Intelligent people can see the sole reason for such a story is smear.
upfront and honest.
Like calling your site skepticalscience when its purpose is to attack any questioning of the consensus. Or take the Guardian, an advocacy organization which calls itself a “newspaper” – implying a search for the truth or objectivity.
BTW, is RealClimate an advocacy group? It seems that Judith’s hosting of ClimateETC is grounds for the warm to say she’s involved in advocacy. Yes, she testifies too, but so do others.
Jeff, can you summarize what you think it is that I am advocating for?
Michael,
You really believe that Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF or any of the other green organizations don’t have an agenda? Oh yeah, to save the planet from dirty, grubbing nasty humans.
Did someone from GWPF stop by your place one morning and piss in your corn flakes?
Kim,
Michael acts more in tune with someone riding the short bus.
Judith,
That’s Jeff, not anklebiter Josh. He doesn’t seem to be accusing you of advocating anything. He says the warmists take the fact that you are hosting a website as grounds for accusing you of advocating.
Judith,
The warm claim you are an advocate and they base it on the type of posts at Climate Etc and your testimony to congress. I am not a member of the warm.
However, based on the type of posts at Climate Etc and your testimony to congress, I’d say you advocate for clearer, more accurate climate communication; greater acknowledgement of uncertainty; vigorous debate of the various theories.
A+ for reading comprehension :)
Is that for me? If so it makes up somewhat for my poor marks in spelling and conduct.
JeffN | May 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
“Judith,
I’d say you advocate for clearer, more accurate climate communication; greater acknowledgement of uncertainty; vigorous debate of the various theories.”
After years criticising others for advocacy, and denyig what she did was, Judith was dragged kicking and screaming to the understanding that she is an advocate.
Also an advocate for specific policies, which appears to be based on assumptions outside her expertise – economic – which would mean that she’s playing power politics with her scientific status.
curryja | May 20, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
Apparently the legal distinction for a charitable group is whether or not you are lobbying (not necessarily whether you are involved in advocacy).
Another requirement that they flout, is the requirement for truthfulness.
Look at the nonsense in the newspapers , all the massive loads of BS they spouted over the research ship stuck in Antarctic sea-ice.
Is that the work of an ‘educational charity’??
You’d have to be up to your neck in m0tivated reas0ning, or suffering extreme naiveté to believe that.
” timg56 | May 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
Michael,
You really believe that Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF or any of the other green organizations don’t have an agenda?”
Reading ccmprehension FAIL.
You do have a very good point Michael.
In the 30’s the Germans faced a well organized group of people who were discrediting physics and the government had to intervene and get rid of ‘Jewish Science’ from the schools, Universities and all these ‘Jews’, who were a cabal.
They managed to get rid of almost all these ‘Jews’ and so you and your fellow thinkers have a good precedent.
Michael,
Exactly why are you so worked up about GWPF? In particular, whether they are a legitimate charity under British law? Are you a citizen of Great Britain? Do you pay your taxes there?
If not, you have no standing, as the lawyers say, and therefore no reason to complain about it.
PS – no reading comprehension fail here. In fact i was a Chapter One reading tutor for several years. Reading has always been a great boon for me and helping kids improve their reading skills and learn to love reading has been extremely rewarding.
DocMartyn | May 20, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
Godwin Doc, really?
Michael – prove that the groups mentioned in the post aren’t “PR/propaganda groups”. But before you do that, define what PR/propaganda groups are. Personally, I think you are full of it.
” timg56 | May 20, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
PS – no reading comprehension fail here”
Then what is the origin of this?;
“You really believe that Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF or any of the other green organizations don’t have an agenda?”
If not poor comprehension, then GWPF-style dishonesty.
I haven’t said or suggested any such thing.
“jim2 | May 20, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
But before you do that, define what PR/propaganda groups are.”
More trouble with reading.
From above;
“As I said, I’ve got no problems with advocacy, any advocacy – honest, up front, direct.
It’s the insidious and deceptive practices that proclaim disinterest, while working assiduously for a particular outcome, that cross the line into unethical behaviour.” – Michael.
Hallmarks are appeals to warm and fuzzy concepts, that no one could disagree with, while acting in an altogether different manner.
GWPF providing a wonderful example with their motto; “Restoring Balance and Trust to the Climate Debate”.
That is, wonderfully at odds with their behaviour.
Some people are easily fooled Jim2, others want to be fooled.
Michael, you accused me of using Goodwins Law, after accusing GWPF of being a ‘propaganda group’. The etymology of the word ‘propaganda’ in the political sphere, as a pejorative, dates from the 1930’s and the use of state sponsored propaganda. You used it in this, modern usage, to draw parallels between groups like the GWPF and the Nazi’s.
I am a rather intelligent, well read, highly educated, professional research scientist; you are none of these things. However, as someone who believes in free speech and free assembly, I have no problem with you and others of your ilk, stating nonsensical prejudiced smears of others. I do reserve the right to point out that you share many of the same immoral views as other fascists.
Your in-group is noble, pure, and forward looking and your opponents are ignoble, evil throwbacks.
Seen it all before, the ending is no fun for anyone.
@ Michael | May 20, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
So now Michael pretends to know everything the list groups in the main post have ever done. It’s BS Michael.
jim2,
I’ve said no such thing – more confabulation from the ‘skeptics’.
I don’t know about every single group on Judith’s list, but pick one, and we’ll check it out and see if they indulge in the kind of dishonesty, deceit and unethical behaviour that GWPF does.
@Michael | May 20, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
Before I waste any more of my time on this nonsense, why don’t you list 3 specific incidents concerning the GWPF.
Jim2,
Why don’t read what I’ve already written – I’ve given some examples.
@Michael | May 20, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
If you think I’m going to search for your posts, you are sadly mistaken. Of the ones I have seen, there are no links, just more BS.
jim2,
How terribly unreasonable of me to expect that you’d acutally read my comments that you are questioning me about.
‘Sceptics’, sheesh!
Mikey – with your comment at 8:17 about Goodwin, you fell victim to Muphry’s Law. However, compared to the rest of your comments, it was reasonably coherent and mercifully short.
As many others have tried to get through to you, organisations in UK are set up under different legislative rules to those in USA. That means they cannot be directly compared. Most advocacy organisations have predetermined agendas and are up front about it. The general public is actually a little more intelligent than commentators give them credit for They can spot the hyperbole very quickly. That is why the alarmists haven’t got traction.
==========================================
Michael, the threads get long and your comments aren’t interesting. If you want to have a discussion you may need to make a bit of an effort, summarize your previous points, etc. No one is going to assemble or re-read your comments. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of “skeptics” — no one is that interested, get over yourself. As for me, I try to skip them…..
“DocMartyn | May 20, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
. The etymology of the word ‘propaganda’ in the political sphere, as a pejorative, dates from the 1930′s and the use of state sponsored propaganda. You used it in this, modern usage, to draw parallels between groups like the GWPF and the N@zi’s. ”
Need to brush up on your etymology – wrong.
“I am a rather intelligent, well read, highly educated, professional research scientist; ” – Doc
This isn’t the place for personal ads Doc.
But good luck finding a match – there’s plenty of other delusional narcissists to choose from round here.
“Skiphil | May 21, 2014 at 4:44 am |
Michael, the threads get long and your comments aren’t interesting. If you want to have a discussion you may need to make a bit of an effort, summarize your previous points”
Yet jim2 expressly asked me to explain my views – but couldn’t be bothered to scroll up a few comments to see them.
What is that?; bone-lazy or stupid??
Could be either with ‘skeptics’.
I think that alarmist scientists now realize that big budget cuts will threaten their numbers and income. Family financial pressures for those in a government-dependent bubble industry will drive activism, fear mongering, and hate-talk….
Enron correction ahead after 2014, 2016 elections?
We really ought distinguish between joining criminal organizations and joining advocacy, political or other types of legitimate public groups, shouldn’t we?
Pretending the GWPF and other tax dodges are in the same category as above-board public-interest charities is a bit like wondering why announcing you’ve joined Al Qaeda draws funny looks.
Bart,
So now you’re saying the GWPF is a “criminal organization”?
Where your evidence? Or are you judge, jury and prosecutor? (just like Al Qaeda)
Got it. When your guys do it, it’s all in the service of humanity. When our guys do it, it’s “criminal.”
DCA | May 20, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
There’s a huge difference between being in favor of transparency and open data — as I strongly am — and being eager to trample around like a bull elephant breaking laws (even bad laws) using those principles as rationalizations. Especially when the people in the organization performing those rationalizations happen to be themselves in positions of power and have had every opportunity to seek amendments to those laws and in some cases were part of the government responsible for putting them in place. The police in the UK have determined Climategate was a criminal act by person or persons unknown. The GWPF’s stance endorsing Climategate is well known. The GWPF is made up largely of the people who when in office framed the selfsame laws they are endorsing the breaking of, but only where it suits their agenda.
The GWPF purports to be an educational charity for tax purposes, but its actions are no different from those of any corporate lobbyist in manipulating the media and brokering backroom deals or obstructing legislative action on behalf of a small identifiable group who profit by their actions. Playing the naif about this is not credible.
For an actual educator at an actual educational institution, for a person in a position of authority responsible in any way for the privacy of employees, to associate themselves with the GWPF’s demonstrated disregard for education and privace is at best poor judgment, and a violation of the trust of such an educational institution and its employees.
pottereaton | May 20, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
When Gleick did it, criminal. Gleick had the decency to resign rather than smear the reputation of the organizations he was associated with.
Bengtsson resigned the wrong organization. He ought have stayed with the GWPF, and resigned from every legitimate educational or scientific institution he’d betrayed by his free choice. It’s not a bell he can unring.
In particular, considering his graceless and false calumnies against colleagues of good faith, it’s a mistake for him to believe he can just go back. What reviewer for any publisher would want to run the risk of being put in the position of the reviewers of a Bengtsson tract?
Remind me of what Gleick resigned from? He is still President of the Pacific Institute and a member of the AGU.
“The police in the UK have determined Climategate was a criminal act by person or persons unknown. ”
Not.
If the person was unknown then the person could have had authorization to the system in question. The purported law broken would require that the person NOT have authorization to access the system in question.
The GWPF’s stance endorsing Climategate is well known.
Really? I googled “GWPF endorses Climategate” and got no relevant results. Perhaps you have a citation from the fevered swamp somewhere?
Gleick for the win!
Peter Gleick did resign as Chair of what was then a newly formed “Ethics Committee” for the AGU.
Evidently the specter of having such a miscreant at the head of their ethics program was too much for the AGU.
However, Gleick should have been expelled from all organizations hich wish to maintain even a pretense of ethical standards.
I don’t think this was a voluntary resignation! If it was, it was two minutes before the boot.
The obscure and shunned little GWPF is not your problem, barty. It’s the pause. You know what it’s doing.
You are getting angrier and more hysterical every day, dude. Try to calm yourself.
Bengsston signed on to the GWPF Academic Advisory Council. Seems like he thought he could have a positive influence on that lot. Advising, you know. Now barty makes him out to be a co-conspirator in a criminal enterprise. Shame on you, barty. I bet you are not like this in real life. Not pathologically shameless, like joshie. I will help you: use your real name here and it will cause you to think about the scurrilous accusations that you throw around.
> If the person was unknown then the person could have had authorization to the system in question. The purported law broken would require that the person NOT have authorization to access the system in question.
The whistleblower law may not apply anymore.
In the previous sentence, the “may” may be polite.
We heard this a thousand times before in other political arenas:
Political organizing for your side is a force of good, intended solely for “educating” the public, and on the side of angels.
Political organizing for the opposing side is dishonest, nefarious, and criminally negligent to any unbiased intelligent observer.
Give it a rest. The appalling difference here is that AGW advocate’s political organizing is funded by the taxpayer in many cases. Centers for Climate Change Communication et. al. I’ve yet to see one of these non-advocacy groups post anything that was remotely critical of the science.
What a waste of digital ink this entire discussion is.
Judith
I recently attended a climate conference at Exeter University-a major player in climate -and which has a major association with the Met Office who are close by.
This is the programme for the main conference topics which includes speakers-clicking on one shows their credentials.
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/climate2014/programmeandspeakers/
This is the evening public event that I attended.
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/climate2014/public/
All the speakers were I would say, advocates to some degree or other, with Prof Stocker being the most diffident and with Prof Peter Cox and Prof Catherine Mitchell being the most overt. The latter in particular made no effort to disguise the fact that she was eager to change things.
I know several of the Met office scientists who just go about their scientific business but would definitely place the head of the Met Office, Prof Julia Slingo in the category of advocate, with Prof Dr Rchard Betts being much more circumspect .
To be fair, the public audience, probably 50% of whom were students at the college, were demanding more direct action and to get the politicians more involved. The panel of speakers generally thought this a good idea. Of course, the advocacy is generally going to be with ‘respectable’ organisations and it is here that we need to define the meaning of advocacy and ‘respectable.’
I have previously said I hold no brief for the GWPF but there are some here who believe it to be much larger, more powerful, and more influential than it actually is. The GWPF are a flea on the elephants back compared to many other groupings to which scientist advocates belong.
tonyb
Bart,
Exaggerate much?
From honest poster, to fanatic, to just plain dick. Quite a journey you are on.
DR Curry, don’t bother Bart with facts. He’s on a roll.
pottereaton | May 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
You’re really not very good at Google searches.
timg56 | May 20, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
I’m standing still. You’re merely sinking.
Bart says:
“What reviewer for any publisher would want to run the risk of being put in the position of the reviewers of a Bengtsson tract?”
So are you saying Bengtsson’s latest paper could be rejected just because of his associations and do you think that is “of good faith”? Seems you’ve abandoned reason and substituted “faith”.
Not related to whistleblower willard.
Not even.
See the caselaw
Bengtsson specifically cites the resignation of US scientist, an employee of the United States government. The way he phrases it, it sounds like that was the precipitating cause of his resignation from the GWPF.
Everybody seems to assume this US scientist disapproved of the GWPF. We do not know that.
Can a scientist who is an employee of the United States government join/do work for the GWPF?
DCA | May 20, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
You seem to be confusing two different issues: the GWPF’s faults with Bengtsson’s faults.
I have no problem with Lennart Bengtsson joining and advising and associating with the GWPF, at all. So long as he first relinquishes those positions that put him into a conflict of interest, what issue could there be?
However, in this little escapade of Dr. Bengtsson, he didn’t just join and then pretend resignation from the GWPF, he also smeared a goodly number of his colleagues, being specific enough in some cases as to leave no doubt whom his targets were. (Say, wasn’t there a case of some psychologist recently being pilloried for doing that? I’ll be vague enough as to leave no doubt whom I mean.)
If you were a reviewer and your publisher submitted a paper to you, it would be wrong to say, “I won’t review papers by GWPF advisors,” or “I won’t review papers by members of a specific political party,” but it would be quite understandable to say, “I won’t review papers by that guy who slanders his reviewers in the press.”
barty, barty
You were supposed to take a rest, but you are still here blubbering and getting more overwrought with each comment. What slander are you talking about? What lame looney accusation will you throw around next? You are obsessed with the obscure little GWPF educational charity. Like most of the people on the planet, I don’t rely on the GPWF for my education. Although, it would very likely be superior to the public schools in Detroit.
Bart,
RE sinking:
Not hardly. As a qualified sub sailor (and diver) being beneath the surface is my natural working environment.
> Read the coleslaw.
Yup:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/21/uk-whistleblower-legislation/
Bart R wrote: “You’re really not very good at Google searches.”
That’s not the problem. The problem is that your links don’t back up your assertion which was: “The GWPF’s stance endorsing Climategate is well known.”
How does one “endors[e]” Climategate anyway? Was Climategate running for office?
pottereaton | May 20, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
Argument by infinite regress. Give it up.
Bart Verheggen on the Importance of (supposed) Consensus
The role of scientific consensus in moving the public debate forward
by Bart Verheggen
Mike Hulme had an interesting essay at The Conversation, the main message of which was
In the end, the only question that matters [for the public debate about climate change] is, what are we going to do about it?
Hulme correctly argues that the basic science is clear enough so that for society the important issues to discuss are not science related, but policy related. I argued much the same here
snip
As Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook write in a response to Mike Hulme:
The public’s perception of that scientific consensus is necessary to stimulate political debate about solutions.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/scientific-consensus-public-debate-hulme-lewandowsky-cook/
:: ))
Andreas Fischlin, Coordinating Lead Author IPCC, WWF Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel, Professor at the ETH Swiss Polytechnical Institute Head of Terrestrial Systems Ecology Group (state funded).
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/24/wwf-issues-press-release-about-my-book/
Climate activism is about wilfully not looking at all potential influences on climate (eg, the actual earth), and treating past events and conditions as old sepia photos in a drawer, of interest but just not sexy enough for Cancun. A skilled activist uses lots of comparatives while blurring the points of comparison. Sydney’s just had its warmest (actually that’s a superlative) May since 1958. You think they’re gonna talk about 1958, you silly punters? 1958 is fading away in a drawer somewhere, along with your Bobby Rydell 45s. 1958 indeed!
Climate science, on the other hand, is about…well, I’m sure it’s not like the above. Well, I’m 97% sure it’s better than that.
A Judy mentioned, the IPCC has a political agenda and is clearly advocating and lobbying (also for money from governments). Their life blood comes from political, not from scientific institutions.
… and, the UN-IPCC is dancing to the tune of the Eurocommies — perhaps for their own reasons, do doubt — but, the EU doesn’t want people like Bengtsson to be heard anywhere, by anyone.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So do you suggest we should carry on with business as usual just because forecasts are complicated?
Bengtsson: No. I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for change and be prepared to adjust. In 25 years, we’ll have a world with some 9 to 10 billion people that will require twice as much primary energy as today. We must embrace new science and technology in a more positive way than we presently do in Europe. This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs.
Answer In acting to destroy willful ignorance, science is now and always has been politicized:
Thank you, Judith Curry, for helping to remind Climate Etc readers that individual researchers like James Hansen and Naomi Oreskes, and workshops like the Vatican’s recent high-profile workshop Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility. , are well-grounded in the most ancient, honorable, and Enlightened traditions of the scientific community.
Let the political chips fall where they may!
Conclusion The creative destruction of ideology-driven ignorance always has been, and will continue to be, a crucial responsibility of the scientific community … that’s common-sense and an evident historical fact, eh Climate Etc readers?
Naomi Oreskes a researcher? Your ignorance is stunning.
Willful ignorance by Bernd Palmer, rebuttal by FOMD!
Seriously Bernd Palmer, only the most committed denialists still blind themselves to the ever-increasing relevance of Oreskes’ research both to climate-change science and to ordinary citizen-voters.
`Cuz *THAT* relevance is becoming ever-more-obvious to everyone — including indefatigable special-interest astro-turfers —eh Climate Etc readers?
Fan, you missed the point of Dr. Curry’s piece. She’s trying to call attention to the hypocrisy of those that attacked Lindzen and Bengtsson simply for belonging to an advocacy group as such.
With your typical dishonesty, you try to conflate this with the separate issue as to which side of the debate is correct as regards the science, but then you just resort to the usual boilerplate assertions and rhetoric.
When your side is acting hypocritically, can’t you just admit it? Despite your attempts at conflation, it cannot be papered over. You really are a very sloppy thinker. Perhaps that’s your root problem. Maybe lay off all the fancy fonts and ascii art?
“xingaparagrab”, neither you nor Prof. Curry has provided even *ONE* example critizing Lindzen and Bengtsson for belonging to an advocacy group “as such.”
Rather, Bengtsson’s colleagues have (very reasonably!) advised him (based upon objective evidence, and in the opinion of many practicing scientists) the GWPF is a secretive anti-science advocacy group that is controlled by special interests.
In which event, we can scarcely expect Bengtsson’s colleagues to remain silent, eh “xingaparagrab”?
Silence in the face of willful ignorance would be entirely contrary to many centuries of scientific tradition!
That’s pure common sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
Not at all, sorry.
“the GWPF is a secretive anti-science advocacy group that is controlled by special interests”
Just got to be the Jews, is that right FOMD, so glad you can sniff out Red Sea Pedestrians like Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser.
Save us from ourselves FOMD, point out the evil, plotting cabalists.
Naomi Oreskes is not a scientist.
FOMT,
The UNFCCC and IPCc were shaped and directed from before their conception by the scientist-advocate-activists Michael Oppenheimer , John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, and assorted like-minded colleagues:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/#comment-562372
We can never ever see anything comparable from more independent-minded, non-activist scientists; for they could never mobilize the interests of worldwide power-hungry govt. officials, grant-hungry academics, and influence-hungry churnalists in any similar ways.
Glad that you love them so well, must make you happy……
Propaganda by FOMT
Reality-check by Skiphil
(no, you need not thank me, the pleasure is truly ALL mine, I know)
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But weren’t you one of the alarmists 20 years ago? Do you think your position at that time was wrong?
Bengtsson: I have not changed my view on a fundamental level. I have never seen myself as an alarmist but rather as a scientist with a critical viewpoint, and in that sense I have always been a skeptic. I have devoted most of my career to developing models for predicting the weather, and in doing so I have learned the importance of validating forecasts against observed weather. As a result, that’s an approach I strongly favor for “climate predictions.” It’s essential to validate model results, especially when dealing with complex systems such as the climate. It’s essential do so properly if such predictions are to be considered credible.
Didn’t see the IPCC turning down the Nobel committee’s ultimate political prize.
I don’t mind scientists joining advocacy groups.
Coleridge wrote, when he wrote newspaper op-eds for a decade around 1800, that a conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.
What should be deprecated is claims to knowing stuff that is not known, the phenomenon of the pretend-scientist in an advocacy group.
I must say that the comments on CE have become boringly predictable. The only comments that matter are those of our hostess. Because if a skeptical Saint Judith were to “raise her banner in the Highlands”, the ” skeptical clans would gather”,
Jim, she is a warmist by your definition. She believes climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is between 1.5 and 4.5 C or thereabouts. She certainly doesn’t believe it is indistinguishable from 0.
What is really meant by the constant accusation by warmers that if one doesn’t believe in CAGW that one is anti-science?
If Science is simply a process , a wonderful method of inquiry, it is “neutral”.
However if Science is viewed as “A Source of Authority”, then it is not “neutral”
Lindzen addresses these issues below:
How Science can be Politically Usefull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YP-9xB2loE
Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWa1wadxvho
I don’t know how David Suzuki is perceived elsewhere, however in Canada he’s an environmental icon. Originally his claim to science was as a fruit fly breeder (geneticist). However he’s long been a journalist/advocate.
In the short clip below, he actually explains exactly what the advocacy process has been. Al Gore tells him in 1988 not to expect action from the politicians on Climate Change, but to go forth (as supposed scientists) and preach the gospel of CAGW until the public demands action from the Pols.
Notice that the supposed scientist (Suzuki) actually acts as if his scientific mentor is none other than Al Gore!!
Forecast Earth In Depth: David Suzuki, Part 2
http://tinyurl.com/n3pkcun
Suzuki 1972 ( Warns of the Dangers of Anointing Scientists as new High Priests of Society )
David Suzuki on science, elitism and the apocalypse
Suzuki talks about the politics of science and the science of politics
http://tinyurl.com/mas3mkv
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-debate-anyways/#comment-369394
Science and Politics : Global Warming and Eugenics
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
Lindzen 1995
Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
Nuccitelli being economical with the facts now there’s a surprise.
In these cases I usually ask: Is the author dumb, blind, or incompetent? Fortunately, the variants are not mutually exclusive.
Carl Sagan also was a member of a political advocacy group, as follows:
“In 1984 the Union (the Union of Concerned Scientists) dropped all pretense to science or neutrality. Popular science writer Carl Sagan organized a 15-city tour by UCS members to bolster Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale, an opponent of Star Wars, in his unsuccessful campaign against President Reagan. In 1988, the Union and other peace groups opposed research on what’s now called the stealth bomber, claiming it would make war with the Soviet empire more likely…
“In 1992 the Union issued a “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” This petition is no different from the jeremiads of Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown and other members of the environmental clerisy. None dare quarrel with their dark vision of the future. The Warning speaks of vast human misery and a planet left irretrievably mutilated. Mankind may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.
“However, the appeal hedges on the question of climate change. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale…
“… The appeal calls on humanity to regulate its activities in order to fit the Unions fears about future climate change, despite the absence of certainty that climate change is actually taking place. Sounds like an example of how someone’s values can taint their conclusions, doesn’t it?
~Neil Hrab, The Green Inquisitor, TCS Daily (22 Dec 2003)
What this kinda goes to show you is that even the most intellectually-fulfilled scientist who has realized all the real benefits of science and all the romantic trappings surrounding, at the end of the day, remains not quite fulfilled.
Andrew
See a list of 78 IPCC-affiliated ‘scientists’ who have been part of the WWF’s Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel for years here:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/01/78-names/
Donna Laframboise | May 20, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
Do you have the list for PETA, Greenpeace or ALF, three much more close comparators?
How many of them work for the United States government?
a list of folks who support this group would be cool
http://nationalreport.net/liberal-eco-terrorist-group/
Some people seem to be missing barty’s point. It’s OK to join Greenpeace, WWF, and the rest of the greenie advocacy groups. They are pro-Earth. That’s good. GWPF is anti-Earth. That’s bad.
Don Monfort | May 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
READ HARDER.
I wouldn’t want to be associated with the sort of group that would accept anyone remotely like me.
Doesn’t mean I refuse to recognize that they exist, or that I’d sacrifice the liberty of freedom of association if a group espouses beliefs different from my own.. for instance, by launching ad hominem attacks on people who don’t criticize them.
Point is, you can’t belong to the GWPF and be trusted in a position of authority over confidential information of employees, and you can’t belong to a shady tax dodge like the GWPF that exploits educational charity status while being in a bona fide educational institution lest some future investigation drag your school into the fracas.
If you want to join Mosher’s anti-Climategate (once someone who understands what laws the police say were broken and can break it down for him in plain language and smaller words unless and until Mosher cares to go to the police and explain for them why they’re wrong in their official findigns), untainted by tax-rip-off pseudo-GWPF, without that baggage, go for it.
Thanks for confirming my interpretation of your previous comments, barty. Your talent for self-parody is shining brightly today, bartski. You should take a break.
I wonder why you people are so desperate to perpetuate the sketchy meme that the Climategate emails were hacked, rather than leaked. There is no question that the emails are authentic and provide a peak behind the faux consensus curtain that’s very revealing of the nasty character and nefarious shenanigans of certain powerful climate Team scientistas. (I think I got that out of Mosher’s book.) Anyways barty, enjoy your rest.
Bart,
Instead of always telling people to read harder, try writing clearer.
Don Monfort | May 20, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx
You simply twist the facts so far out of recognizable shape as to make them barely recognizable.
Were the popular whistleblower theory that you continue to espouse in contradiction to the conclusions of the police true, it would be an even greater reason to be appalled by Dr. Bengtsson — a senior member of the administration of his group at Reading — backing Climategate implicitly by joining the GWPF, because of the trust required by his position, until such time as there were a whistleblower who stepped forward and sought the protection of the whistleblower laws of the UK. Because until such a thing happens, the presumption can’t be whistleblowing, from the point of view of those responsible for vouchsafing the confidentiality of employee’s communications; it’s criminal breach of privacy by person or persons unknown.
timg56 | May 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
Pfft.
What’s the point of writing clearer, when all some readers want to do is be obtuse?
barty, barty
You are so angry that it went right over your little pointy head. It doesn’t matter if the emails were hacked, leaked, left in public toilet accidentally, whatever. The emails are authentic and they revealed the little Team clique of alleged scientists to be little scoundrels.
PS: If you worked at CRU and wanted to blow the whistle on the nefarious nincompoops without being found out, you would be smart enough to do it from outside to make it appear to be a hack. That’s what the police mean by “sophisticated”, barty. (Now watch barty protest that he isn’t that smart or sophisticated.)
Don Monfort | May 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
Case in point, timg56.
Don’t let timg56 get under your skin, barty. It’s getting crowded in there. You will be needing to line up at the clinic.
Bart,
That obtuse group includes you from time to time.
This is a pretty straight forward issue. Does advocacy and activism have an impact on how a scientist should be viewed or listened to?
The answer to the question will be all over the map. My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a little advocacy, preferrably with the scientist making an effort to distinguish which hat he is speaking under. The next step into activism is trickier. Activists have a tendency to let passion override good sense and factual evidence. A big reason the environmental groups are fast and loose with the science and heavy on the PR. I would not automatically discount their scientific work and conclusions, but I’d have reservations. One exception to the above are government scientists. If they feel the need to advocate and become activist, then take a position in acadamia or the private sector. I give Dr Hansen credit for resigning his NASA position to become more active. That is how it is suppossed to be done.
So we can all disagree on the issue of activism and advocacy. What becomes dishonest are stupid ass claims put out by the likes of Scooter Nuccitelli that only one side behaves in such a manner. For every GWPF I can raise you 3 enviro-green organizations. For example, which conservative based think tank put out a series of commercials showing people who refused to fall in line with green dogma being blown up? Which one has repeated broken national and international laws?
And exactly why are you (and apparently Michael) so worked up over whether GWPF is a legitimate charity under British law? As the attorney’s would say neither of you has any standing. Meaning no reason to complain. Now I could do what you and others have down with regard to Prof Bengtsson and attach motives for your behavior. But that would make me as big of a jackass as you all. I have some questions about what happened, but without those details reaching any conclusion beyond the facts as he stated them is speculation and in several instances scurrilous speculation.
timg56 | May 20, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
Meh. To be the obtuse reader of my writing you claim, I’d have to bother to read what I write. What would be the point of that?
As for what you write.. you seem to be agreeing with me, but unhappy about it and unwilling to go the next reasonable step: be skeptical evenhandedly, not just of activists, but also of the inactive, of those whose views you know or do not know, with the same level of validation and verification, of logical decomposition of their arguments and of stepwise checking of their claims and data.
In that way, you remove the ad hominem from the question entirely; all that time wasted gossiping and politicking and wondering what sort of fraudster might have written what you’re reading is freed up for actual analysis and inquiry of the matter directly. Apply the same skepticism to your own claims, and you’ll deflate the ego that gets in the way of spotting confirmation bias.
Keep going along the lines you have set out; eventually you’ll catch up with where I was yesterday. And if you think you’re unhappy to be agreeing with me now, just imagine how miserable you’ll be to agree with me then.
Bart.
these two things are incompatible
1. we dont know who did it.
2. A law was broken
Why?
The law in the UK requires un authorized access and intention.
So, if I have authorization to be on the computer, and I choose to hack in to make it look like un authorized access, I wont be found guilty. Also as I told willard, check the case law in the UK.
Further the police dont get to decide if a crime is committed. They decide to charge someone. Juries decide whether a crime is committed in this case.
So, for example in one famous 1993 case the person who accessed the computer material without authorization was found not guilty, no crime was committed, despite the fact that he did admit to accessing the computer without authorization. How you ask? simple. He plead that he was addicted to the computer and mens rea came into play.
That said, I havent seen where GWPF were eager to break the law as you claim and cant find any support for the break in their literature.
Bart,
These two things are incompatible:
1. This window is broken.
2. We don’t know who did it.
The window just can’t be broken.
Trust me. I’m rich. I’m powerful. I code faster than I think.
Steven Mosher | May 20, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
Quibbles about definitions that will never in a practical sense matter. No one is ever going to be charged, found guilty and serve time.
And yet, no employee is going to look at the fact pattern and be comforted by this certainty that no justice will come, that no government has much power to protect their privacy. We’re not in the realm of lawyers and ethicists; we’re in the realm of how employees are going to feel about hearing their senior administrator is a Black Hat.
Some employees feel darn good about that, as I’m sure you know. But I’m equally sure you tell them up front before you employ them, and think less of those Black Hats who don’t disclose to those whose livelihood hangs on that relationship.
It must be difficult to be Willard’s wife. Every time he opens the refrigerator and sees a beer is missing, he calls the cops.
David Brower Quote:
Brower described the increasingly radical arch of his professional career to E magazine:
The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.
http://www.activistfacts.com/person/3507-david-brower/
Bart,
What is it with you interpreting what people say to fit your particular view?
You note that I seem to agree with you, but then have to characterize that agreement as “unhappy about it and unwilling to go the next reasonable step”. Where does that come from? Not from anything I wrote. It happens that I’ve agreed with you on a number of topics. I’ve generally agreed with you about implementation of a carbon tax. I might not be as avid about it as you, but I acknowledge it has its points.
Making stuff up or attributing positions to someone with no evidence is a sign of dishonesty. Just as you have done with Bengtsson.
timg56 | May 22, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
Apparently, when you write, I’ll have to READ HARDER, as it seems my interpretation of what you write somehow errs. This must have been one of those obtuse times for me.
Why do I have quibbles about the criminality of the international GWPF under the laws of its home country? Perhaps because I only mentioned their criminality there I left the impression that they’re not criminal elsewhere, a foreign group devoted to interference in the domestic policies of the USA, founded on lying about its motives, pretending to be an educational charity.
The GWPF has set out to sabotage American decision making and American science. How does any American lack standing? Its members are not all British. It’s activities are not all British. Dr. Bengtsson was not shy about blaming an American colleague for his own failings.. indeed, in such a way as to cast a shadow on any American scientist.
We have plentiful evidence of Dr. Bengtsson’s wrongdoing. If you think I’ve attributed motives too strongly to the author of his claims, by all means make a specific case based on the evidence that better explains it. Though I really care less about his motives; it’s his conduct he needs to address.
In 2011 several Canadian scientific organizations – as well as individual scientists – signed an open letter to the federal govt. That letter was written, organized, funded and publicized by the WWF.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/29/canadian-scientists-and-the-world-wildlife-fund/
Which letter was it?
Was it http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/ for instance?
Or the one about experimental lakes?
The one about undermining Elections Canada?
The one about shutting down federal libraries and shredding their contents?
The one about revealing the ties between pharma interests and federal ministers in short-circuiting the approval of drugs?
The one about meat inspections?
Canadians have ineffectual letter writing campaigns ignored by their masters all the time. Why should the rest of the world care?
Bart R,
don’t worry, the rest of the world doesn’t care (much) what Canadian advocate or activist scientists do….
but the discussion here is about scientists and advocacy
if you don’t care then it is a strange place to be commenting
Sometimes, reading an editorial from bottom-up reveals interesting things.
Here’s what we can find at the bottom:
> I believe in pragmatism and common sense. I believe in cold, hard facts – and in treating people with whom I disagree with courtesy and respect.
Here’s what we can find at the top:
> Writing The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert was like fact-checking a pathological liar’s resumé.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
That is all.
The founding members of the education-and-advocacy group that publishes The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists were scientists and mathematicians from many disciplines and of the very highest rank including:
• Eugene Rabinowitch (biophysics). He founded the magazine alongside physicist
• Hans Bethe (quantum physics),
• Max Born (quantum physics),
• E.U. Condon (nuclear physics)
• Albert Einstein (all of physics!)
• J. Robert Oppenheimer (quantum field theory),
• Michael Polanyi (mathematics)
• Leó Szilárd (all of physics!),
• Edward Teller (all of physics)
• Harold C. Urey (nuclear chemistry)
• … and many more!
Conclusion The inexplicably common yet mistaken present-day belief that former generations of scientists refrained from political advocacy (including climate-change advocacy) is entirely anhistorical.
They were worried about a real potential problem. It’s a pity that you can’t understand that.
Yes, and then it was taken over by political scientists and eco-philosophers and no longer is much about science.
Those were real scientists not pseudo-scientist advocates like the tawdry group that is today’s Climate Nomenklatura
“real potential problems”
Love it!
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the marine biologist who led the IPCC’s AR5 Ocean chapter, is a full-blown environmental activist. He recently wrote a politicized foreword to a WWF brochure, and has a long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/30/the-wwf-activist-in-charge-at-the-ipcc/
IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has written forewords for Greenpeace publications:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/05/the-ipccs-activist-chairman/
Deputy Leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and chronic IPCC author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._Weaver
Liberal advocacy groups.
http://nationalreport.net/liberal-eco-terrorist-group/
double check the source of course
Conclusion Lennart Bengtsson received collegial criticism, not for advocacy per se, but for allying with an organization that is secretively funded by special interests whose ideological objectives are grotesquely anti-scientific.
*THOSE* facts are obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Do WWF, Greenpeace, Pacific Unethical Group (or whatever it is called) all publish the names of all of their donors? I thought most organizations kept the names of their donors secret?
How can they be secretively funded if you can link to their funding sources?
How can you call them ‘grotesquely anti-scientific’ when you own claims about science are false?
It’s like Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quay; “I know medical researchers, and you Sir are no medical researcher”
DocMartyn – when there are two such strongly divided camps you often find that much of the division comes down to the fact that many on one side of the argument will be those that judge people by their actions, whilst the other side will be largely populated by those who judge people by their ideology.
Once you recognise this it can take away much of the frustration associated with arguing, because, if you are arguing from the former category, you will never be able to convince someone from the latter by presenting evidence of wrongdoing, malpractice lack of scientific base or any other logical reasoning. What you have to do is present an argument why things do not fit with that person’s pet ideology.
This is why you will always find people here who won’t take a stand against the actions of Peter Gleick for example, but who will throw Bentsen under a bus without the blink of an eyelid.
Likewise Greenpeace & WWF are inherently good because they have good intentions and mean well, but the GWPF are bad because they don’t love the environment and are linked with nasty big business which we all know are full of bad people.
I know the ideological viewpoint is illogical, morally bankrupt and childish in the extreme, but that is how some think and argue, and no amount of reasoned argument is going to change their viewpoint.
It occurs in so many areas where there are deep two sided views on things.
Politics is an obvious one.
In fact, if I am not sure which side looks right on something, I look for the side that has the majority of the ideology judging people on it and choose the other one.
Speaking of advocacy, which is entirely his right ( and duty since he thinks he is compelled to advocate such views), Michael Mann is a one-man advocacy organization. His twitter feed is amply studded with strong praise (not mere links but fervent advocacy) for left wing (often avowedly socialist) publications such as Mother Jones, Nation, Guardian, Think Progress, Climate Progress, DeSmog Blog, etc. etc.
I emphasize that such activity is perfectly within his rights as a citizen, and he well may regard it as a moral duty, but let’s not pretend this is anything but advocacy strongly skewed toward one part of the political spectrum.
Then ofc there is his continual stream of vile attacks upon everyone he views with disfavor, from fellow scientists who do not toe his line to his warped world in which just about everything bad is linked to Koch Bros., Fox News, etc.
oh, Mann’s twitter feed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelEMann
I honestly believe that UNFCCC started IPCC as a way to reach the main target of the UN: the world peace. I do not believe that they started all this as a bussiness for the CO2 emissions trade or as a way for corrupting global institutions (and scientists). After the CCCP vs USA cold war, if a global institution controls “somehow” carbon and oil, then there might be less risk of having wars.
I have studied for 5 moths all the scientific basis of that link between greenhouse gases emissions and global warming, but I found no consistencies about such link. Furthermore, I found the inappropriate use of science I describe in my “Refuting …” document:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k
The question now is: in order to reach any sociological/political target, is it ethically appropriate abusing of science?.
Antonio,
The problem with your analysis was that the IPCC was not created, funded and controlled for purposes of giving the UN power over the global energy economy. Progressive governments created the IPCC as a PR operation to justify their taking control of the energy economy in their own countries.
The primary goal was power – the power of the patrons of the IPCC, the progressive leaders of virtually all of the western governments.
Antonio I had a look at your paper and you raise some interesting points, as far as I understand (I am neither a statistician nor modeller, I worked with satellite data). The GCMS are the only tool available for trying to understand the climate. The output is compared with satellite data to see if the basic physics is right (not to match perfectly). I’ve been to many seminars where radiation models were discussed and there is always an effort to do it right. No one ever says that they expect to make a lot of money if their scheme is better. This is not what motivates them. Some of the managers and summarizers are making money and I feel that much of the arguments are more about that than the science.
The IPCC might have started out with good intentions but it has evolved into an elite club. The writers of the research articles should not be collecting and summarizing their own results. (Of course they think their own work is important. )
Regarding conspiracy theories mentioned by GaryM, I question his news sources.
Hi rmdobservations, but if those outputs of global climatic models (which are based in a main parameter: climate sensitivity that relates eq-CO2 emissions with global warming) do not modelate the observed hiatus, IPCC says “no problem: we change a little bit our simulations and the hiatus appears” (instead of start thinking that greenhouse gases are not the main drivers of climate change).
This is the same non-scientific procedure as ptolemaic epicycles.
Antonio, I think the word your are looking for is “fudging”, making the models output what you want. I think the “hiatus” is an excellent problem to be investigated. But the current media cannot accept the answer “we don’t know yet”. Here is a link from RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/) which describes the difficulty in interpreting trends.
If I remember, the “ptolemaic epicycles” were not wrong. They were just a very complex way of describing something when a much simpler theory proved to be better. The earth’s climate is very complex and the models try to describe the complexity. Start with Navier-Stokes equations on a sphere. That’s all they are. Then you have various time scales: daily (weather), yearly (land changes, sun) decadal to centennial (oceans) and the occasional volcano. If the model output does not match the measurements it means that the models are not perfect. It does not mean that the scientists who write the code have an evil plan.
My rule of thumb is to look up the name of the person who is providing information. What is their specialty? If their specialty is not equal to the discussion topic, they might not use the right words to describe the information.
I think it is fine for scientists to be associated with advocacy groups (just imagine what you’d hear if they were not involved), but there should be a rigid split between acting as a scientist and acting as an advocate.
Scientists should FEAR making mistakes and being seen to be unscientific, i.e. having an undue lack of doubt. When doing science the advocacy must be forgotten.
When acting as advocates they can follow their gut feelings and sense of what is right but therefore, to the outside world, should be disassociated from SCIENCE, i.e. should be just plain Mr and Mrs, not Prof X from Uni Y.
speaking of Michael Oppenheimer formerly of the EDF for 20+ years (discussed in the head post above), he was one of five scientists on the 1987 Steering Committee that got the ball rolling toward the UNFCCC and the IPCC. They provided estimates of global temp. increases between 0.3C and 0.8 C per DECADE through around 2050 (report says “middle of the next century”) for all but the lowest emissions scenario which would require immediate drastic actions at that time).
http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/Villach-Bellagio-WMO-report.pdf
legitimate activity? I think so, if not masked or deceptive in operations and purposs, but certainly “advocacy” and even “activism” on behalf of what he viewed/views as enormously important issues.
re: legitimate activity?
I mean, of course, in relation to any individual scientist expressing, advocating a view.
However, what was the selection process for the 5 Steering Committee members and 50 participating scientists in 1987??
unless there was rigorous action to ensure a proper (proportional) representation of scientific views existing at that time, in the relevant fields, this may well have been the first in a long series of hijackings of scientific societies by scientist activists.
I don’t know what the breakdown of scientific views may have been in 1987-88, most likely it fell far short of the manufactured “consensus” of more recent times.
In fact, to the extent that an unrepresentative activist core may have shaped the process in 1987-88, they had the golden opportunity to skew all subsequent scientific and public discussions in their favor. Most scientists in any sub-field probably do not have time or inclination to step back and survey multiple related fields comprehensively. Most scientists, no matter how proficient in their own area, are likely to be unduly influenced by colleagues and scientific societies who/which claim to have studied an issue more closely. If the “studies” are infected with activist views from the start, then of course it is not a representative set of views which appear in the final products.
Did an extremely high percentage of scientists (in relevant fields) agree in 1987-88 with the estimates of 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE for global temp. increases?? If not, then the whole process was skewed from the inception.
That is not “conspiracy” mongering that is simple fact. (if my speculations about the less than unanimous scientific views in 1987-88 are roughly accurate)
correction, there were 10 on that 1987 Steering Committee, not 5
(I was remembering the 5 SC members listed on that title page)
Speaking of scientific ACTIVISTS:
Biased at birth??
This crucial 1987 process which led toward the UNFCCC and the IPCC was sponsored by three groups which have included the following activist scientists:
(1) Michael Oppenheimer – EDF
(2) John Holdren, WHRC
(3) Paul Ehrlich and Jane Lubchenko, Beijer Inst. (current affiliations, don’t know yet who might have been involved in 1987)
Far from any attempt at an objective, unbiased representation of scientists, this process was advocacy and activism at its core. No wonder they were providing a range of temp. increases estimated at 0.3C to 0.8C per DECADE without drastic action.
(1) “Interesting” that the Environmental Defense Fund was one of the 3 core groups listed as initiating the whole process in 1987!
(2) Along with the “Woods Hole Research Center” (this is John Holdren’s activist group and NOT the famed Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Holdren merely glommed onto the reputation of WHOI with his activist group’s name…. resulting in lots of confusion through the years)
(3) The 3rd of the initiating groups may be more more scientifically respectable, perhaps, (the Beijer Institute affiliated with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences — although still activist in orientation) — it lists Paul Ehrlich and Jane Lubchenko among its “Fellows” who seem to have very long term affiliations with the Beijer…. although I don’t see what the make-up was in the late ’80s.
http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/Villach-Bellagio-WMO-report.pdf
skiphil: did you see my link in this post:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/#comment-561755
If they ever get around to indicting people for defrauding the world through the imkposition of the IPCC, they should indict Oppenheimer first.
pottereaton,
just saw it, thx for link!
fascinating, advocacy and activism from the start, yet people want to squeak and rage about tiny impotent groups like GWPF…….
The IPCC is the ultimate advocacy group on globalclimatewarmingchange.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.”
“formulating realistic response strategies”
“to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations”
http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
Formulating strategies and preparing recommendations sure sound like policy advocacy to me.
There is nothing wrong with scientists being advocates. If they see a danger the public should be apprised of, they indeed have an obligation to make that known.
The only issue is integrity.
“Problems arise when a scientist puts ‘the cause’ above scientific integrity…”
The problems arise when anyone puts anything above integrity. Gleick was not just motivated by “the cause,” any more than Michael Mann was. In fact, I think in most cases it is vanity that is valued above integrity.
cross-posted with Gary M., what I regard as nicely complementary comments!
Adding to the Canadian content here:
For a truly entertaining few minutes you can watch Ezra Levant of Sun News Network destroy David Suzuki in his piece “Is David Suzuki a Fraud?” (answer below) The really interesting part is not Suzuki’s Goreish giant carbon footprint or his hypocrisy (four houses, five kids) but the fact that he is stunningly ignorant about climate science and genetic engineering – stuff that one would expect him to understand better than the average amateur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=felC-IeeOcE
Answer: You bet!
I point at this:
> A political organization is any entity that is involved in the political process. Political organization including political institution, political parties, political groups- e.g. advocacy groups, Interest groups etc.
And I point at this:
> ‘Political organization’ is perhaps not the best descriptor of organizations like CATO and GWPF; I think they really meant advocacy groups.
That is all.
Say, wasn’t that one guy who says he co-founded Greenpeace an activist then, and an activist now?
Patrick something?
Oh, here he is:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-at-the-former-green/198266
If Patrick Moore’s stopped taking part in the sort of criminal enterprises of some in Greenpeace since he left it, that’s great. I can fully get behind wanting to make a good living, as Moore clearly chose to do. We have no inkling of what Bengtsson’s monetary concerns were in the case of the GWPF.
I can get behind leaving a group when they veer off into radical waters of a different political stripe, as Greenpeace did.. though it’s a bit hypocritical when you’re one of the tillermen responsible for the radicalization of the course, and it’s suspect when you go on to form your own radical for profit group doing the opposite of everything you once said you stood for, for the people you once claimed to stand against. Bengtsson’s colleagues ought have the same freedom to distance themselves from him when he veered so dramatically and publicly, and they at least are in no danger of hypocrisy.
For non-Scientist, non-educator Moore, activism isn’t the issue, nor would it be if he were an actual educator or scientist instead of lobbyist and advocate for hire. It wasn’t Bengtsson’s activism that was to blame for his misfortunes, as he claimed. The evidence of the actual reviews of his rejected paper make that very clear.
Even the orientation of the activatism — or its large flip-flop — isn’t the issue nor would it be if he were an educator or scientist. James Hansen’s climate science isn’t suddenly wrong because his sudden embrace of nuclear activism errs.
Heck, even the radicalism too isn’t the issue nor would it be were Moore a scientist or educator. Protest all you want. Write letters. Speak out. Just don’t rationalize breaking laws and then expect to retain positions of trust in legitimate institutions.
Until the separation of the responsibilities of the one with the conduct of the other becomes an issue, it’s all good.
Why do you say Moore is a non scientist? According to Wikipedia, he has a PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. in Forest Ecology (1969).
What are your criteria for scientist?
I have a BS in chemistry and have been working as an analytical chemist for 20 years, am I a scientist?
Are you a scientist?
name withheld | May 20, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
I was using Dr. Moore as an example of a person in a position whose role as a scientist wasn’t part of the question, rather than raising the question of whether he was actually a scientist or not. It seemed more convenient to use his case than “Inflatable Rubber Dummy Who Joined And Then Left Greenpeace”.
I note I don’t list credentials after my name here; my intention isn’t ad hominem, but to discuss what’s relevant to the claims and cases of the arguments. What’s relevant about Dr. Bengtsson appears to be nothing to do with activism, as we can see from the example of Patrick Moore, an inveterate activist.
What’s relevant is that Dr. Bengtsson put himself in a position of conflict of interest between his roles and responsibilities in his administrative role at Reading and his advisory role of a group with sharply incompatible values; what’s relevant is Dr. Bengtsson’s rash defamations of colleagues in this incident, which would tend to bring into disrepute everyone in the field simply by virtue of his intemperate mudslinging. Dr. Bengtsson has been an activist and advocate for years, but he wasn’t up to now a member of an organization under active investigation for violation of the Charities Act, and he wasn’t up to now a member of an organization that endorses breach of employee privacy to further its goals.
How is it possible to have two decades of experience in analyses, and not to be able to grasp this rather luminous distinction?
Bengtsson was going to serve as an advisor, presumably an unpaid position with GWPF. How could that be in conflict with being a faculty member? He might have given them good advice and been a positive influence on them.
Well I suspect that was Bengtsson’s take on this
The real issue here isn’t Bengtsson; it’s his co-author who resigned. Bengtsson obviously respected him enough to quit the GWPF. The US scientist is likely to be a person of substance.
Everybody is assuming he had some sort of bias toward the GWPF. That may not have been what it was all about. He may have not wanted to be seen as being political. He may have wanted not to be seen as an advocate.
JCH,
It’s pretty obvious that this person was concerned about the damage done to the INTEGRITY (TM) of science by such actions, and wanted no part in it, or to be associated in any way with it.
You’d think Judith would be applauding.
> He might have given them good advice and been a positive influence on them.
Lennart certainly knows how to galvanize troops:
Even the less well-read would know little about how the “good” forces helped to build both N-ism and C-ism. It is important to realize that there is no alternative to an open and liberal society because you will never know how the “good” forces will behave in the future.
[Även de mindre belästa borde ju veta litet om hur de ”goda” krafterna bidrog till att bygga upp både n-ism och k-ism. Det är viktigt att inse att det inte finns något alternativ till ett öppet och liberalt samhälle därför att man aldrig kommer att veta hur de “goda” krafterna kommer att bete sig i framtiden.]
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2014/05/18/nagra-tankar-om-klimatet-och-var-mojliga-framtid/
curryja | May 20, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
Everyone is the hero of their own story. Few choose to think of themselves as the villain, though some will paint themselves as victim when cognitive dissonance sets in.
I have no doubt many would wish to join all sorts of organizations for all sorts of good reasons. But after Cub Scouts one is presumed to have figured out how consequences and personal responsibility work.
Can you join Anonymous while being a security administrator of a computer system? Well, clearly people can and did; but none did it without coming into conflict of interest, and more than likely breach of contract. If not security administrator, then not senior administrator with authority over employees. If not Anonymous, then not GWPF. This is very simple.
Can you join an organization being investigated under the Charity Act for violation of the section on presenting factual information to the public while being in a position of trust at a university? That’s debatable. If the GWPF is making a serious effort to clean up its act and present only factual information, then we must accept they’ll need experts in factual information.
However, the very press releases the GWPF put out about Dr. Bengtsson’s resignation were themselves so over the top false in light of the very little evidence now coming out from those he has slandered as to shatter that argument.
What was Dr. Bengtsson thinking? Not about the duties and responsibilities of his position, collegiality or the many trusts he was breaching.
uhhh no one here has the slightest knowledge (demonstrated thus far) of what Bengtsson’s unnamed withdrawing co-author thinks about this whole scene.
He/She might merely not like the spotlight.
He/She might know how perverse and irrational the pressures can be in climate world.
He/She might be in a position which requires no such connection to potential “advocacy” (though that rarely seems to slow down the pro-CAGW activists)
He/She might not care to be associated further with Bengtsson but might in no way regard it as any issue of principle or of scientific integrity (e.g., live and let live, you go your way and I’ll go mine)
He/She might disdain GWPF but still might see no “integrity” issue for Bengtsson, simply different views and priorities.
etc etc.
Some people have fervid imaginations about what this unnamed (former) co-author thinks, but no knowledge (so far).
So, Moore is or isn’t a scientist? Simple question, doesn’t require a multi-paragraph answer.
Unless you’re getting paid by the word.
name withheld | May 21, 2014 at 12:40 am |
READ HARDER.
The character of the guy who wasn’t Bengtsson, for the purpose of contrast, was played by the person of Patrick Moore, for a brief passage to explain a simple idea.
Are you sure you’ve got two decades of analysis experience?
Paid by the hour?
Bart R
WRITE SMARTER.
And yes I do have over 2 decades of analytical experience, but I work in the real world, where we make real products for real people. Part of my job is explaining my work in a clear and concise way. I guess that is why your version of the climate debate is so confusing to me.
You miss his point. He thinks he’s perfect and by golly, he is. There’s a few more like him here and what I can’t understand is how they can all be perfect if they aren’t all alike?
============
name withheld | May 21, 2014 at 8:25 am |
If you still think I’m debating after reading what I’ve written, my version of things is lost to you regardless of how smart anyone writes.
And poor kim has forgot the principle of the Persian Flaw; my writing is of course imperfect, because in the real world the only perfection is from the hand of God. Or because it’s easier and more fun to be imperfect.
You asked a specific question badly framed. I explained your error in framing the question. You began the pointless process of escalating insults and ad hominem against a stranger on the Internet in response.
Debate isn’t a matter of yelling back at boors who stand on a pile of lies shouting down anyone who disputes them. Reading isn’t the responsibility of the writer. Good advocacy isn’t about losing the trust of others, nor is good activism what Dr. Bengtsson did, so squandering his reputation to besmirch the good names and good works of his colleagues.
So, Scientist or not, is not the matter. You’re an analyst?
Show off some clear analytic thought processes by synthesizing a response that salvages some value from this sad and pointless exchange.
What doesn’t make sense is that if Bengtsson resigned from the GWPF because he faced criticism from his colleagues, why would he then continue to attack those very same colleagues by leaking a review to the Times? If he was so willing to attack why didn’t he just stay with the GWPF?
I think this indicates Bengtsson was not in control of events by the time all this started happening. It suggests a third party involvement in the leak to the Times. That’s would explain how it got out of Bengtsson’s control and also why he ended up disowning the Times story after it was published.
Without an intermediary it’s also hard to understand how the story even came into existence. The idea of Bengtsson emailing a Times journalist with some vague complaints that a paper of his was rejected and that producing a front-page story is laughable.
Someone with a deeper agenda and far more journalistic influence got that story in place.
It seems very likely that Bengtsson gave the review to the GWPF, who in turn had backchannels with the Times to turn it into a story. The GWPF fits the bill as it’s entire purposes is as a propaganda mill into the UK media and has form in that capacity.
The McCarthyism continues…
Postulate by lolwot, evidential links by FOMD.
Lolwot’s postulate is evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
I was wondering if you guys, lolwot and FOMD are paid by big oil? It would explain a lot about your communication style.
Your links to sourcewatch are only convincing to those who already believe, probably because their breathless exposition of the evil ties to various dark and nefarious actors relies more on the reader’s faith in the existence of these bogeymen than any substantial evidence. So they are actually harmless to “big oil” or “king coal.”
Your complete dismissal of any who disagree, according to you, with the 97% consensus is offputting enough to be a ruse designed to repel. Actually, that 97% percent consensus accommodates a pretty broad spectrum of opinions, especially allowing for politics regarding solutions.
I guess though that you probably are not writing ironically, and are simply unable to grasp that your stuff isn’t working. Or you are doing it for different reasons, like selfish little exercises in bathing your psyches in imagined superiority.
Who knows? Who cares?
I know when you talk about astroturf, you basically insult those you are trying to convert.
“Someone with a deeper agenda and far more journalistic influence got that story in place.”
Deeper agenda? Compared to what?
Whoever gave the story to the Times wanted to out the boorish behavior of those who bullied Bengtsson. It’s part of the general progressive attack on the free speech of those who dare to oppose them. Whether it was Bengtsson himself, someone from the GWPF or someone else, the “agenda” was the same.
Boy you guys love conspiracy theories.
Other than Bengtsson’s description, there is no evidence he was bullied. He might have evidence, but so far he has provided not a shred.
So claiming bullying was a fact is premature.
A colleague withdrew as co-author because of Bengtsson’s affiliation with GWPF. We have no idea why he objected to the GWPF. He hasn’t spoken.
JCH
If someone says they are afraid of the dark are you going to demand they submit to a lie detector test or some how hook them up to some apparatus to determine their pulse rate when in the dark? If that is how he felt, at some point, whether he was justified or not common sense says you accept this word for it
Neuroscientists are working diligently on interpreting the brain waves of individuals for purposes that 20 years ago would have seemed impossible. I am sure when all that research is completed, in cases like this, there will be calls for an analysis of the persons brain waves to ensure they are telling the truth.
ceresco kid I assume that you accept climate scientists received death threats from climate skeptics then.
Last week some could be heard muttering that scientists should not become involved with political advocacy groups.
From this week onward no-one is able to argue that.
In defense of Bengtsson, argued yourselves into a hole.
Considering that the main purpose of Leftist political action groups is the character assassination of its political opponents, it should at the least be understood that the public shouldn’t have to pay to be lied to.
What political position is supported by GWPF?
In your view must it be a political debate or can it be an economic one devoid of politics?
“What political position is supported by GWPF”
Oh please. I am not going to even warrant that with a response, except to point out how naive it is.
Consensus is the business of politics. ~Michael Crichton
So trying to do what makes sense and will actually accomplish something is inconsistent with your agenda. To advocate that is unacceptable politically to want to do what makes economic sense is what makes people who advocate as you are a joke to the general public.
lolwot
Obviously, one that is diametrically opposite to the political position supported by IPCC.
Right?
Max
lolwot
Scientists being paid by taxpayer funding “should not become involved with political advocacy groups”.
Those that are not should be free to do whatever their little hearts desire.
Pretty simple, actually, lolwot.
Max
You are going to have to yell louder lolwot, as we can’t hear you from down in the hole you are in.
Hypothetical question by Rob Starkey, verifiable answer by FOMD.
Thank you for asking your insightful question, Rob Starkey!
~Signed by independent scientists, including as follows: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D’Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. “Bill” Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.
“xingaparagrab”, can Judith Curry reasonably expect her colleagues (and Climate Etc readers to utterly ignore centuries of historical precedent, and the GWPF’s deplorable record of anti-science advocacy.
The scientific community as a whole appreciates the weight of evidence set forth by analyses like Dunlap and Jacques’ “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection“ (American Behavioral Scientist, 2013)
Conclusion Lindzen and Bengtsson can scarcely expect their colleagues to remain silent in view of this massive evidence of anti-science propagandizing.
That’s ordinary science-respecting common-sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
Holy hyperbole Batman!
Fanny
It’s always refreshing when outspoken advocates like Dana Nuccitelli come up with such silly claims like this one that there are “zero examples of mainstream climate scientists joining political organizations”.
Huh?
This kind of absurd claim may fool some readers, but these would have to be extremely naïve and totally uninformed.
Were you one of the readers that fell for Nuccitelli’s silly claim?
(I hope you are more intelligent than that.)
Max
Considering Climate Science is a political organization for the most part it makes it especially humorous.
Manacker, the name “Nuccitelli’ is not known to FOMD. And unless (s)he is a top-rank climate scientist, or a historian of science, or alternatively a slogan-spouting minion of the “usual suspect” denialist think-tanks, I will forgo further investigations.
Because indeed it is true, that throughout history the *greatest* scientists have *commonly* allied with heterodox advocacy organizations. Often wisely, other times not!
A Fan: if the name “Nuccitelli” (the person whose comment is the very basis for JCs post) is not known to you, than why the hell are you commenting here?? The fact that you are unaware of Mr. Nuccitelli who keeps a very high profile in the climate debate from his perches at the Guardian (you’ve heard of that right?) and SkS does not speak well to your level of knowledge. Next time, it might serve you well to do a modicum of research before sprouting off.
Western academia is essentially advocating the continuance the Left’s, war on affordable energy; and, the economy reflects that.
Scooter is a puffed up hypocrite. His qualifications in climate science don’t rate any higher than mine – i.e. course work covering some aspects of the science. His primary claim to fame is as John Cook’s attack puppy. Who thinks there is any chance he writes a column about the University of Queensland’s ham fisted attempts to silence a scientist?
“timg56 | May 20, 2014 at 4:10 pm | Reply
… about the University of Queensland’s ham fisted attempts to silence a scientist?”
Huh??
Michael,
You haven’t heard about the letter they sent to Brandon Shollenberger threatening a lawsuit if he released information found in the public domain? They even said they would sue if he showed anyone the letter itself.
Spot on!
Someone needs to expose the hypocrisy of Dana Nuccitelli.
Good job, Dr. Curry.
Max
We’re all political animals. Embrace it!
I believe that every climate scientist should have a strong religious belief; either strongly a belief in a god or strongly a belief there is no god. The itch to join something that had advocacy written all over it then has an outlet to channel this need to tell other people what to do.
Once there is an outlet for vigorous pontification, then maybe climate scientists, although exhausted, may have some energy to devote to science.
It doesn’t take much energy to observe a non-equilibrium deterministically chaotic world; I do it a lot, sitting on a beach of a distant shore, sharing a kaleidoscope with my grandchildren.
Then there are those Russian scientists who advocate for more warm-water ports. Know something we don’t? Anyway, nice to see their government getting right behind them – or in front, actually, with T-90s.
While Asia is burning fossil fuels like crazy (someone has to make your Prius), western scientists “advocate” for fewer humans living dingier lives. Nice! Trouble is, having shot our Enlightenment foot and then our Judeo-Christian foot, we’re running out of feet to shoot, aren’t we?
Me: While the warming rate has been radically oversold things are potentially much worse with a mathematically finite risk of catastrophic climate change within as little as a decade. Let’s do something pragmatic like raising foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP to address issues like population and development, health and education, conservation and resource management. Domestically – energy prizes – and I have suggested a billion dollar global energy prize would generate some interest – as well as open and competitive performance based contracts for carbon mitigation seems like the way to go. If reduction of greenhouse gases is a social good – let’s explore the least cost mitigation options.
Space Cadet: You are a psychologically aberrant Neanderthal with the social conscience of a gnat.
This is fantastic. Not the post – which is another pedestrian socio-political jaunt by Judy. But the comments. Who can doubt that the movement I dub the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets (BCCAGWGSS) are vicious little troglodytes utterly convinced of their group mediated moral rectitude and intellectual astuteness – and who regard resistance by the morally repugnant and intellectually inadequate – as well as incomprehension from the great unwashed of their psychological greatness – as futile.
Lennart Bengtsson is the example de jour. Who can doubt that he has been lectured, berated and bullied by hordes of vicious little troglodytes. It is not as if it is unprecedented. Most of them then feel justified that he has recanted and rejoined the fold. Some feel he has made his bed and should be stripped of every honour and distinction before being cast into the outer darkness – where there shall be gnashing of teeth etc.
The email scandal is the example par excellence. This is not national security. That what we have is a bunch self-important troglodytes embarrassed at being caught out conspiring to thwart science – and to destroy evidence of such in a publicly funded institution – is proof without any doubt of the public interest.
So, Judy, when will you join the GWPF?
You already prefaced one of their reports:
http://www.thegwpf.org/oversensitive-ipcc-hid-good-news-global-warming-2/
There are lots of people whom you respect there.
***
Denizens may also like:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/06/lord-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/14/bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/
I completely agree. As a Journal Editor, it is absolutely essential to keep one’s own pre-conceptions on the sideline when it comes to the selection and peer review of papers and articles going into that Journal. I would also say that the best science is carried out that way as well.
So, without activist scientists and advocate economists, how would we know that Georgia could save over 60% on the cost of energy by 2050 by abandoning fossil?
http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ga
Activism and advocacy aren’t the problem.
Propagandists seeking to frame the debate to discredit proponents whose facts cannot be overcome on reason and good sense are the problem.
That’s a nice cartoon, barty. The people of Georgia will be very happy in 2050, according to the cartoon projections.
Explains much. You relate to cartoons.
When you’re ready for the books without pictures:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html
barty, barty
Almost everybody recognizes a cartoon, when they see one. You are living in Fantasyland, bartski. Climate alarmism fatigue has set in. Virtually nobody takes you clowns seriously. CNN can’t even sell the story to their lefty drone audience:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/05/20/CNN-Boss-Zucker-Tremendous-Lack-of-Interest-in-Our-Climate-Change-Stories
More bad news for Chicken Littles:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/134665-Climate-Change-Grows-Increasingly-Boring-to-the-Public-Worries-Scientists
And from Gallup poll Most Important Problems:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
Unless you want to count Environment/Pollution at 1%, climate change/whatever doesn’t register. You people suck as alarmists. Maybe you all should change your strategy. Debate, instead of denigrate. No, I think it’s too late. Your credibility is shot.
Don Monfort | May 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
What about this cartoon makes you think it’s about climate or alarm?
It’s about jobs created and dollars saved.
And if you’re arguing that news about saving jobs and money doesn’t interest people, then the news media are doing something very, very wrong indeed.
In truth, I don’t agree with all of Dr. Jacobson’s figures entirely. But you’re just disagreeing with the idea of even looking because you’re so blinded by unreasoning hatred of some imagined “other side”.
Maybe you need something simpler than cartoons, to get the point.
Good luck with that.
So, you posted a random cartoon without having any motive related to your climate Armageddon psychosis.
I don’t have anything against Georgia in 2050, or anywhere else, getting 100% of their energy from wind, rain, snow, sleet, dark of night, unicorns, whatever. We all know it’s not going to happen. I now return control of your TV set to you, barty. Grab yourself a box of Lucky Charms and get back to your Looneytoons.
Don Monfort
Barty’s handy dandy cartoon has got it all wrong.
Georgia just needs to ban all insecticides and it can get all the energy it needs in 2050 from lightning bugs.
Max
I want to thank the respondents for illustrating exactly what we get without activist scientists and advocate economists: we get crap.
oh please not jacobsons crap.
stay tuned.
Bart R
Correction:
I want to thank
the respondentsBart R for illustrating exactly what we getwithoutfrom activist scientists and advocate economists: we get crap.Max
Mosher, “oh please not jacobsons crap.
stay tuned.”
Don’t do it!! Let BartR figure it out hisself.
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | May 21, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
It might save time to hear out Steven Mosher | May 21, 2014 at 3:25 pm | on this; after all, there are over three thousand hits on http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22mz+jacobson%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 with really ample citation counts, and I’m less than ten percent of the way through all that reading.
So if we have a decent summary from someone who’s read all of it, what’s the harm?
This kid uses some of the same techniques of argument that are employed by some of my favorites here. My favorite currently is barty. Barty, in case you don’t understand your little friend, he is saying to his mommy:
“lookit, lookit Linda”
“listen to me, Linda”
He is at grandma’s house and he asked for cupcakes. When his mom said no, he went behind her back and he asked his granny. Argument ensued.
Bart R | May 20, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
Wow.
This comment must have really hit a nerve. We’re even seeing irrelevant videos of children now.
It seems like I’ll have to link to Professor Jacobson’s stuff more often.
Maybe then we’ll see videos of kittens and puppies.
barty, barty
You started this thread with an irrelevant cartoon. You admitted it’s not about climate science. I know your feelings are easily hurt, but attacking a video of a little kid is pathetic. You are a very bitter old alarmist dude. Is this the way you want to be remembered, bartski?
Don Monfort | May 21, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
This is why I oppose blog moderation. Before long, if you give someone enough latitude to show what they’re really made of, they won’t disappoint.
What in particular has offended your tender sensibilities, barty? I thought trolls were supposed to come with a hard shell.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 1:15 am |
You really don’t get that my sensibilities are not offended?
I genuinely like that you’re showing your colors so flagrantly. Gives people more evidence on which to judge. Carry on. More samples. More data. Don’t hold back.
Masochist.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
You overestimate how seriously you could possibly be taken.
You don’t know when you are being manipulated.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
Nor care.
It’s not about me.
It’s about the most parsimonious, simple, universal inference from all observations.
And since you cannot seem to disentangle from ad hom long enough to discuss the Science, you can’t be taken seriously.
How much longer do you want to keep this cartoon thread going, bartski?
Glad to find out who is pulling strings for the global warming movement. Unfortunately too late to take corrective action because they already control the peer reviewing enterprise, journal editorships, and allocation of grant money. This puts pseudo-science in complete charge. It can be demonstrated that Hansen did not observe the greenhouse effect in 1988 because his “100 year greenhouse warming” used substantial amounts of non-greenhouse warming to make his point. The IPCC and their pseudo-scientific insistence that AGW is real was built up upon this false claim of Hansen’s.
> JC note: Daniel Kammen was the editor for Environmental Research Letters that rejected Bengtsson’s paper.
Indeed:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/18/climate-journal-chief-editor-responds-bengtsson
Courtesy of Eli’s:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-third-referee-waits-in-wings.html
Interestingly, it’s the first time I noticed that Mike Hulme may have some affinities with the Conservative Party:
http://www.mikehulme.org/2014/04/affiliations/
***
As a side note, Joanna Haigh seems to be interested in geoingeneering, e.g.:
https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
Small world.
Your 1988 example is too late Arno Arrak … by a full decade (or more):
Needless to say, James Hansen’s 1981 article “Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide“ references William W. Kellogg’s seminal 1978 textbook Climate Change and Society: Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Arno Arrak, it is a pleasure to assist in remediating your (alarmingly great and readily verified) knowledge deficiencies in regard to the science and history of climate-change!
Ragnaar
Way above I said;
‘I have previously said I hold no brief for the GWPF but there are some here who believe it to be much larger, more powerful, and more influential than it actually is. The GWPF are a flea on the elephants back compared to many other groupings to which scientist advocates belong.’
In this thread I have seen lots of conspiracy theories and an apparent overwhelming belief that the GWPF are some sort of omnipotent organisation about to convince governments and millions of people of their cause with the help of fantastic levels of funding and high level support.
It simply isn’t like that. GWPF have a tiny budget and very little influence. This is not the US where the debate is roughly split between well heeled republicans and well heeled democrats.
ALL our main political parties believe in the CAGW message , we have a law to drive down our carbon, we are taxed accordingly and substantial funding is put towards following a policy to mitigate CAGW and to research its effect.
Some people here need to scale back their hugely exaggerated belief in the power and influence of the GWPPF and stop imagining they are about to topple the political and establishment consensus on CAGW that exists over here in the ruling classes.
tonyb
climatereason | May 21, 2014 at 3:14 am |
In this thread I have seen lots of conspiracy theories and an apparent overwhelming belief that the GWPF are some sort of omnipotent organisation…”
Would be interesting to see some evidence of that. Shouldn’t be hard given the presence of this “overwhelming belief”.
Tonyb,
It is easy to imagine that the histrionics against GWPF have to do with some misperceptions of great influence, but I suggest that a different phenomenon is at work. The hysterics know that they are losing their “cause” and they simply lash out at any scapegoat they can find. It is not rational but it is soothing to a certain kind of mind…..
Also, the nature of Noble Cause Corruption is to be outraged by any opposition at all. Not only are they losing with the public, but these bleeping skeptics won’t roll over and shut up.
Finally, proponents of The Cause want no less than 99.44% purity, like the old Ivory Soap advertisements (maybe only a USA reference, not sure). Even the bogus “97%” consensus claim is unbearable. Why isn’t approaching 100% yet?? Even Saddam Hussein managed over 99% in his last referendum, so what’s with this lousy 97% ??
Skiphill
This attempt to close down discussion by name calling, attempting to ostracise prominent dissenting voices and shouting down others is an interesting development. There is an article in this weeks Time magazine entitled ‘Cap. Gown. Correctness. Thought police lead prominent voices to skip a rite of spring.’ in which we can see these forces at work.
Groups have stilled debate at universities because a bunch of well organised and motivated people have taken it on themselves to ensure there is no debate on subjects they personally disapprove of.
The examples given were of Christine Lagarde of the IMF, Ayaan hirst Ali and Condoleeza Rice. These groups are so certain they are right they want to ensure that no one else can hear the arguments.
The debate on CAGW follows that route in some quarters such as the BBC and the Guardian and it is a worrying tendency.
tonyb
Tonyb,
yes, political correctness is stifling, and is common in some quarters whether the “cause” is perceived as advancing or declining.
Interesting you should mention the current campus controversies in the USA … I have close personal ties at each of the campuses to which you refer (Smith, Brandeis, Rutgers), and also at Haverford College which just had a similar episode…. so my discussions have been lively among family and friends, but the activists shutting down these speakers are really tiny groups (at most a few dozen each). It’s simply that no one likes bearing the wrath of such fanatics.
fyi, a bit of pushback from the replacement speaker at Haverford, criticizing the fanatics, er…. activists:
Haverford Speaker Bowen Criticizes Students Over Protests
Former Princeton President Offers ‘Blunt Indictment’ of Graduates
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304198504579570552004005882
Skiphill
Yes it is extraordinary how small fanatical groupings can inflict their views and influence sizeable numbers of people whether through physical or mental intimidation and close down discussion. The force of the argument should be enough but sadly with the advent of social networks and the internet as well as traditional means, these groups can exert influence far beyond their size.
I think it is interesting to hear views with which you disagree or are perhaps not fully aware. In the case of CAGW it is impossible to cut through the gatekeepers at many places of which such as The Guardian, Open Mind and others are examples.
tonyb
Skiphill
Unfortunately your link is behind a paywall, a modern form of censorship! It is becoming increasingly difficult to read the background to stories although I obviously understand that publications need to make money.
I have more problem with publicly funded science behind a paywall as trying to research climate change-for example- becomes difficult and expensive when so much is hidden from view.
tonyb
Tonyb,
sorry about that link…. I don’t subscribe to WSJ, but for some reason when I clicked I was able to see the entire article, so I didn’t realize there would be a problem. Here is a different article:
http://articles.philly.com/2014-05-18/news/49928236_1_birgeneau-haverford-students-haverford-college
tonyb,
Can’t come up with any examples of this “overwhelming belief” that you’ve claimed??
Michael
Yes, about two minutes after you asked me. There might have been some deletions as it didn’t end up where I expected
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/#comment-562686
Sorry, but I will be out for the rest of the day.
tonyb
“Take your own comments which eventually prompted a response from timg56 as follow” – tonyb
You’re kidding, surely??
timg’s response to my comment, is evidence of;
“overwhelming belief that the GWPF are some sort of omnipotent organisation…”
That’s pathetic.
And someone else noting that there could well be some strong links between a conservative paper and the GWPF who’s head is the conservative ex-Tory MP, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Nigel Lawson.
You must have some special personal definition of ‘overwhelming’ and ‘omnipotent’, where they mean ‘scant’ and ‘ haveing connections with conservative media.’
Good luck with that.
Michael drops another load of BS. Wasted bandwidth.
re: deceit
yes Michael, just as vicious, inept, dishonest b.s. can be had for free…. you demonstrate that every day.
Michael
If, despite being pointed towards examples of conspiracy talk which are allied to the apparent belief that the GWPF -headed up by an 80 year old who stopped being an MP nearly a quarter of a century ago- are more influential than they really are, as BartR would say, ‘Read Harder.’
tonyb
climatereason | May 21, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
How did I miss this – what an epic walk-back!!
tonyb goes from the hyperbolically stupid claim that there is an “overwhelming belief” that the GWPF is “omnipotent” to a mere “apparent belief that the GWPF ……. are more influential than they really are”.
That’s a back-down deserving of some kind of award.
Is there no limit to ‘skeptic’ stupid??
GWPF
Charitable activities Year Ended 7/30/2012
(Money spent) Pounds
Publications, publicity and printing 34350
Wages and salaries (4 employees) 142597
Employer’s national insurance 14169
Office costs 30556
Other support costs 19101
Depreciation 1964
Total 242737
I don’t see a lot to get concerned about here. It doesn’t seem to have the finances of a Goliath.
Heh, shrimpy little David.
====
You have a lot to learn about shell-games, Ragnaar!
Comparing the GWPF to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
For the year ended 9/30/12,
The EDF spent over $940,000 on lobbying, more than GWPF’s entire budget. This seems a bit close to the million dollar limit.
The EDF had total spending in excess of $100.000,000.
The EDF has 8 employees earning more than $200,000 a year compared to none for the GWPF. 2 or 3 of these employees when you add together their compensation, would earn more than the GWPF spends in a year.
The EDF has a total payroll expense which includes the above of over $36,000,000.
It had Advertising and Promotion costs of over $6,000,000.
It had Occupancy costs (rent) of over $5,000,000.
Travel Costs of over $4,000,000.
Conference Costs of over $3,000,000.
36+6+5+4+3 (above) = 54% on kind of overhead plus ads.
It made grants of over $8,000,000. Roughly 8% of total spending.
Does this 8% above seem kind of small? This form 990 information is available free at GuideStar. The EDF is a lot more interesting than the GWPF finance wise, and the EDF is not dis-similar from a lot of charities.
Despite FOMD’s citation of conspiracy ideation believing every dollar for every conservative group goes to funding climate change denial, the amount of money spent by green groups on CC dwarfs even this amount.
From the 2009 Greenpeace Annual Report.
“Our clear priority is tackling climate change – mainly through our Climate & Energy and Forests Campaigns, on which campaigns our expenditure has increased from €32 million in 2008 to almost €37 million in 2009 (an increase of 15.2%), or from 62.1% of our direct global spending on campaigns to 67.5%. The climate imperative, nevertheless, underpins all of our international campaigns, and in 2010, as in 2009, we will continue to increase substantially the proportion of our resources spent on tackling climate change.”
That’s one year, not 12 or 20.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/greenpeace/2010/Annual_Report_2009/AR2009.pdf
One year report. Add in the US branch of Greenpeace, the other countries’ branches, The WWF, The Nature Conservancy, Government sponsored programs and the money absolutely overwhelms any sense of proportion.
Oh and let’s not forget this:
“Former Vice President Al Gore is launching a $300 million, bipartisan campaign to try to push climate change higher on the nation’s political agenda.
The three-year campaign by the Alliance for Climate Protection will begin Wednesday with network television advertising that will include “American Idol” and other non-traditional shows that reach a non-news audience.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9268.html
I think this fizzled to 30 million as the political wind started shifting.
Still, either of these two budgets more than overshadows the total amount skeptics have received or spent to advance their case, and there are likely dozens more.
But what you are forgetting is that it doesn’t cost much at all to lie about a ship stuck in Antarctic ice.
In fact they have a bunch of you doing it for free.
What’s funny is the way Big Oil is cunningly luring Big Green into its fight with Big Coal and Little Nuke. (Who wouldn’t love gas that’s “natural”, especially when you put it in a cuddly “mix” with whirlygigs and solar.)
Truly, a Green is an oil executive’s favourite vegetable. Mind you, the likes of Goldman Sachs also love their Greens.
When asked the source of Gore’s $300,000,000 propaganda fund the response was that it was from internet and anonymous donors. Even Andy Revkin blanched at that.
==============
A number of the “consensus” thinkers seem to be afraid of organizations that can accomplish more with less funding. Fiscal responsibility and efficiency are keys to success and being afraid of success and the successful appears to be the real consensus theme.
“captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | May 21, 2014 at 9:14 am |
A number of the “consensus” thinkers seem to be afraid of organizations that can accomplish more with less funding. Fiscal responsibility and efficiency are keys to success….”
No, it’s just that deceit and unethical behaviour come cheap…
Michael writes_
“No, it’s just that deceit and unethical behaviour come cheap”
Well stated!
It is certainly true that supporters of most CO2 mitigation activities are being untruthful when they claim to “know” that the proposed activities will provide ANY measureable benefits, much less benefits worth the costs incurred to implement the action.
just consider vast streams of “laundered” funds flowing through Tides Foundation to radical activist groups, including quite a few enviro groups (WWF etc.) which do a lot of “climate change” work:
[I am certain that FOMT, Michael, lolwot, Joshua, and friends will be along shortly to express their shock and dismay over this vast activist money laundering operation]
consider just a few of the many funders of “climate change” advocacy and activism which make GWPF look like a mosquito on the huge beast of climate advocacy and activism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=110
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Defense_Fund
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
(“Climate Progress” and “Think Progress”)
lolwot | May 21, 2014 at 6:12 am |
But what you are forgetting is that it doesn’t cost much at all to lie about a ship stuck in Antarctic ice.
I think looking back at it, the skeptics could have been more subtle, and not made it so personal in some cases.
Judith said:
This might help: http://tome22.info/Top/ResearchEntrance.html . Look at the number “Persons with most IPCC papers” AND (“Persons affiliated with most organisations of Advocates” OR “Persons affiliated with most Alarmist organisations”).
From the above link click on “Persons” then on “Summary“, then on
“Persons affiliated with most organisations of Advocates”
http://tome22.info/TypeViews/Persons.html#id3
Then:
http://tome22.info/TypeViews/Persons.html#id7
Then:
http://tome22.info/TypeViews/Persons.html#id14
Oh, but Peter – those orgs sit at the right hand of God and top the pinnacle of sweetness and apolitical light. NAAS is ALWAYS and EVER apolitical, don’t you know.
Jim 2,
Thank you for the comment :).
I thought there’d be a bot more interest in this tool.
Skeptics know this, alarmists won’t.
==============
Quote of the week?
“It’s as though every academic achievement grants you the opportunity to tone down your formality,” Dr Ruben wrote in Science Careers. “Twenty-year-old interns wear ties. Thirty-year-old postdocs wear khakis. Forty-year-old research scientists wear sweatshirts. Fifty-year-old tenured professors wear whatever the hell they want, and 80-year-old professors emeriti wear the same clothes they wore at 50, minus pants.”
Professor Curry,
Is this your description of James Hansen: “. . . he doesn’t let the credentials and his position stop him from saying the truth, risking everything. . . .He’s been saying the truth for decades, out loud, in the scientific and popular publications and in Congress.”
As the Guardian article puts, this is just the kind of shiny object the skeptics like. Forget that we have just tied the warmest April on record, and it happened during the so-called pause. That’s just the normal ho-hum climate stuff. We get these records nearly every month, it seems. This trumped up war of words and politics is what it is all about for them. Who cares about the signs of the changing climate really when we have these soap operas to discuss instead?
A month without a record would be a record
We’re cooling Jim.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Expect 30 years without warming by ~2020.
30 years? You’ve forgotten you’ve shifted your start date to 2001 haven’t you?
Not so long ago you guys were starting trends in 1997/1998. That you’ve had to shift that by three years should be a clue what is happening.
By 2020 you will have to start your “no warming” trend in 2015 or something.
It will never reach 30 years, not with an unabated human carbon volcano.
Quite clearly from the data we can see your start point in 2001 is cherrypicked to start at a high above the longterm trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
Jim D
The “warmest April on record” followed the coldest winter on record in many locations.
Why did you fail to mention this?
A silly mistake, Jim.
Max
lolwot
The “no warming” (or “slight cooling”) period started January 1, 2001, with the start of the new millennium.
It’s still going strong.
Will it continue for another 13 years, 17 years or more?
Who knows?
Not you. Nor I. Nor the IPCC.
But, given the fact that our planet has been going through an underlying warming trend since well before the onset of significant human GHG emissions, as we have been emerging from a colder period called the LIA, it is likely to shift back to a gradual warming trend some time in the future IMO.
Max
Jim D and all,
Guess you’re gonna need to ramp up the scare hype an awful lot more now….. no one listens to Chicken Little anymore, the Big Bad Wolf is missing in action, and the public really doesn’t care. Sorry to be the bearer of such sad tidings….
Yeah, climate change schmimate change, who cares? Let’s talk about some guy called benson or something, who nobody here even knew a month ago. and try to guess what he is thinking from the few words he has uttered. More fun than that climate sciencey stuff.
Haters gonna hate
lolwot,
care to explain the “hate” in my comment??
or did you just drop your smear in at random?
I don’t “hate” CAGW propaganda. Maybe I should. I’d say that “disdain” is a far better word for how I regard attempts to transform our entire economic, political, and social worlds without adequate evidence. Not talking of the”97%” which I am a part of (some AGW, perhaps, but no evident extreme crisis)….. show how my comments “hate” anyone, if you care to substantiate what you say.
p.s. I think of it all as largely “Noble Cause Corruption” — I know quite a large number of people involved with climate issues to one degree or another in NGOs and academe. I certainly don’t hate them (some here might) — I think they are profoundly misguided, and I know they would say the same of me to the extent we speak of any of these issues. But we are quite civil in my off-line life……
All those ”expert scientist” should be loaded in a bus and direct to jail! Not one of them takes in consideration that: ”earth’s atmosphere has oxygen & nitrogen, lots of it, they are regulating the overall planet’s temperature, not CO2 &CH4”:
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
It has been exercising my mind mightily. Can one on of claims by frauds, liars, mental incompetents and shysters discern the commitment of groups like the GWPF and individuals like Lennart Bengtsson to telling the truth and nothing but the truth as they see it. The answer is a qualified yes by the law of opposites.
It is clear that they have not got ‘the science’ right yet so how would they know anyway.
Generalissimo Skippy | May 21, 2014 at 3:12 am | Reply
“It has been exercising my mind mightily.”
To the point of exhaustion apparently, and it’s now producing gibberish.
Here I was working on the assumption that exercising the brain keeps it subtle – and that Michael has not worked nearly hard enough to build any intellectual muscle.
This latest highly amusing and stunningly mature comment would seem abundant evidence if one needed more.
Michael
Take your own comments which eventually prompted a response from timg56 as follows
‘Exactly why are you so worked up about GWPF? In particular, whether they are a legitimate charity under British law? Are you a citizen of Great Britain? Do you pay your taxes there?’
Then we had Fan, then Iolwot who apparently thinks GWPF have an open channel to the Times Front page.
Please also read my original comment which was primarily about scientists who are also advocates. Thank you.
tonyb
Allegations of ‘untruth’ from liars, charlatans, frauds and shysters are sufficient to demonstrate a case. The verdict I would assume from the nature of these vicious little troglodytes and incorrigible character assassins is not even in an alternate reality could it be proven.
You want a dialogue? They are not remotely motivated to do anything but denigrate and deny anything that isn’t their group mediated moral rectitude and intellectual astuteness. As ludicrously unlikely as moral rectitude and intellectual astuteness appear to be to the unbiased observer. There is no hint that these people can be reasoned with.
Robert,
You can’t reason with unreason.
What he lacks – quite egregiously – in wit and imagination he makes up for in schoolyard level rejoinders.
Indi laments lack of dialogue?
Thusly;
“Allegations of ‘untruth’ from liars, charlatans, frauds and shysters”
“the nature of these vicious little troglodytes and incorrigible character assassins”
“As ludicrously unlikely as moral rectitude and intellectual astuteness appear to be”
Finishing with zero insight – “no hint that these people can be reasoned with.”
The voice of unreason speaks.
Tony,
Michael and bart like telling people they can’t read. The way they refuse to answer straightforward questions or manage to invest the views of others with their own interpretation gives the impression that their reading skills need brushing up on.
timg56 | May 22, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
Why drag me into this?
The GWPF is not solely a UK group, but international in its membership and ambitions. That it is a dishonest tax cheat is merely evidence of its dishonesty, so far as those outside the UK tax base may care, except insofar as the GWPF also seeks to lobby and influence the governments of any nation against the interests of those nations. Then it is a dishonest foreign tax cheat interfering in domestic matters.
Lennart Bengtsson has been caught in a web of his own lies, as is readily evidenced when we see the actual rejection letters for his actually substandard submission. You can’t turn the full contents of the full rejection into what he claims happened. The GWPF’s claw marks are all over the initial story, and it’s playing any audience for fools to pretend otherwise.
This whole sub-digression of commentary really doesn’t merit attention, least of all the attention of those who’ve already gotten far past this sideline.
Little barty keeps trying to get out, but you keep dragging him back in. Since you can’t help yourself, I will help you barty. Stop paying for your internet connection. Your provider will cut you off and nobody will be able to drag you in. You could do your trolling at Wallmart. You might make some friends.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
What is a gadfly?
Is a gadfly a person like me, who asks uncomfortable, novel and difficult questions and reminds people of the facts they prefer to overlook, goading them away from the comfort of self-deception and the mire of lies?
Is a gadfly someone like you, who just buzzes around noisily and unproductively, seeking to blind and slow, impede and obscure with comfortably bland irrelevancies?
This question pertains to scientific advocacy, and doubly to the two cultures of Science and Policy, where it is quite right for Science to make Policy uncomfortable by reminding decision makers that we know better than their donor-bought policy directives, more accurately than their bible-thumped assertions, more truthfully than their campaign bus lies.
You are not a gadfly, barty. More like a horsefly. We ain’t against science informing policy. We are against politicized science. Now give us some more of your interminable fancy BS. What has happened to you, barty? You used to be somebody.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
By all means, distinguish between the way you’re against politicized science and the way you’re against science, exactly?
What science am I against, exactly? I am very fond of medical science. Chemistry is good. I made a fortune in biotech. My father-in-law is a physicist and I like him. I can’t think of any science that I am against, except politicized science and pseudo-science. But you can call me anti-science, if it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior. That’s what you are after, right bartski.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
So.. you’re in favor of science that lines your pockets or makes your domestic life easier, and opposed to science that might cost you personally money while it benefits others?
That’s a reasonable position, from a certain narrow point of view.
We can conclude then that you’d be in favor of science-based carbon pricing, and revenues delivered to you from carbon-burning fees based on the scientific law of supply and demand, no?
That is, if you’re rationally consistent, and not an anti-capitalist.
You are blubbering again, barty. I wonder what you think you will accomplish with your hysterical foolishness. I am guessing that you used to be a useful scholar. What happened to you? Look at Pekka. He avoids the hysterical hype and sticks to the science. He is dignified and credible. You are a clown. Try to redeem yourself.
Don Monfort | May 22, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
Your guess is absurdly wrong.
Forget looking at people. It will deceive you. Even Pekka says so.
OK, bartski. I was trying to be generous. I was wrong. You have always been a clown. Carry on with your sardonic foolishness.
timg56 | May 22, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
“The way they refuse to answer straightforward questions…”
What is it??
Judith
.
Your fast check was understandably focused on the USA.
In Europe it would be much faster and with more radical results.
.
Just taking an example : Jean Jouzel
The guy is vice president of IPCC, president of the french “High Council for science and technology” and several other things.
At the same time he is supporting one of the craziest radical green political parties in France (Nouvelle Donne) advocating the return to an agricultural society among others.
http://www.larrouturou.net/tag/jean-jouzel/ (Jouzel second from the left).
.
Ah yes, I almost forgot : they demand 1 000 billions Euros (not $ !!) to “save the climate” ! Yes you read right – 1000 billions euros and this is not a nightmare, this is reality.
Calling Jouzel biased, manipulative and untrustworthy would not even begin to qualify this kind of people. Yet he is still in IPCC ….
Now in Europe (homeland of Climategate) almost any scientific institution dealing with climate is dominated by this kind of politically biased people out of touch with reality who elect and appoint each other and whose ideas are in many cases bordering on batcrazy – 1000 billions ideed …
Tomas Milanovic
Wasn’t Robespierre French as well?
Maybe something to do with the climate and wine.
“Extremism in the defense of ……. is no crime.”
A rationalization meant for all men, all times and all causes.
Tomas Milanovic
“..almost any scientific institution dealing with climate is dominated by this kind of politically biased people out of touch with reality who elect and appoint each other ..”
There are statutes in many countries that outlaw incest because of the tendency such unions leads to idiocy. It appears that the other side of the pond has its own collection of examples.
A SuperExtraordinary CalifragiPopular ListicDelusion, the herd goaded into a frenzy of madness.
========
Like global warming, this strikes me as a cause in search of a problem.
Why Those Tiny Microbeads In Soap May Pose Problem For Great Lakes
Are we seeing health problems from toxins and increases in toxin levels which lead us to microbeads, or did people find microbeads and start looking for problems.
Of course, banning microbeads in soaps etc. isn’t a big deal, they’re just a marketing gimick anyway. The article notes many companies are on board with phasing them out. I can’t imagine that apricot seeds are any better environmentally; they likely soak up toxins as well and/or are toxic on their own.
Just interesting how a large, superficial population is constantly seaching for fashionable, faux, man-made problems.
Breaking News
Curry-versus-Hansen Cage Match
Needless to say, it is entirely possible for Judith Curry’s “stagnation” prediction to be right in the short term, and James Hansen’s “hot-planet” predictions to be right in the long term.
More-and-more, however, the smart business-money is betting that James Hansen’s climate-predictions are right even in the short term.
That’s sound science *AND* market-wisdom *AND* common sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
Conclusion The smart money is betting that Hansen’s right and Curry’s wrong.
As long as you’re betting your money, FAN, and not mine have at it.
A good example of how advocacy can harm science: I read what Hansen says and ask myself “Is this just advocacy”?
Well let’s see, Curry is a climatologist and Hansen is an astronomer. FOMD betting on the wrong horse eh Climate Etc readers?
It’s strange that what seems like advocacy for careful development of policy and avoiding knee-jerk policy that will increase risk and uncertainty is seen as evil for so many people.
“and zero examples of mainstream climate scientists joining political organizations. Who is it that’s politicizing science? – Dana Nuccitelli”
This is the obtuse front of leftists who argue their views are “objective” and “science” based. Aside from being completely dishonest, laughably so, it captures the essential mindset of left-wing biased academic authority in a few words.
Greenpeace, SierraClub and UCS aren’t “political” organizations? That’s the sort of contortions of logic and culture we have to deal with. People should at least disclose, which the climate community is very careful not to, their political IDs. Even journalism, a hack political operative profession if ever there was one discloses to some degree;
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/
Where is the peer reviewed poll of the “consensus” climate science members and their political ID? Aside from often not existing upon closer inspection we’re asked to give “science” a get-out-jail free card in regard to their assumed “objectivity and professionalism” of all things the eco-radical front topic of climate science? Nuttitelli as with many of his peers live in an alternative green unicorn world of pompous sanctimony and stunning hypocrisy. So aside from protecting urban legends like 97% consensus there is also the motive of protecting “objectivity” and “science” as a useful tool code words in press releases. That many are greasy greenshirt fanatics entrenched in left-wing culture and ideology must be obfuscated officially at all times.
I credit Dr. Curry for her progress but it would help if she didn’t just allude to the truth of the political situation but spelled it out in direct words; climate science is steep in left-wing ID culture politics broadly from inception and is the primary (more than any other cause) motive of science corruption in climate science. Insiders and “skeptics” as a group not acknowledging this reinforces the very corruption they profess to be against. Mealy mouthed descriptors like “politicization” which rings of equivalency of “sides” are preposterous. AGW advocacy is an aggressive agenda of a clearly identified group that deserves no assistance in obfuscating their purpose, or membership to their “cause” (more ambiguity).
Very timely . . . Diane Rehms of NPR has a show today Think Tanks, Influence and Independence http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-05-21/think-tanks-influence-and-independence
Dr. Curry,
Two guests (of three) have liberal credentials and/or are tied to liberal “think tanks” or organizations Brookings and NYTimes;
William Antholis
managing director, Brookings Institution
Eric Lipton
reporter in The New York Times Washington bureau who covers lobbying, ethics and corporate agendas
The token dissent with a liberal (understatement to say the least) media operative Diane Rehms hosting;
Tevi Troy
president, American Health Policy Institute; former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.tevitroy.org/articles/
Again, the David Brooks syndrome. The kind of Caspar Milquetoast GOP representative often found on the public left-wing think tank, NPR. Talk about a liberal nostalgia show from a time gone by. Bad enough as it is but of course it’s funded on the public dime. Tax-payer funded left-wing “news” spinning.
Can I get a “Koch Brother” word count from the show?
An accurate summary of Diane Rehm;
“The Diane Rehm show, whose selection of guests is a veritable case study of systematic bias, is consistently anti-science and anti-technology while it promotes big and paternalistic government. Rehm considers representatives of self-interested, anti-industry, anti-capitalism NGOs to offer worthy and objective expertise while genuinely disinterested academics are treated as shills and hucksters.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/03/25/nationally-politically-correct-radio/
Can we think of anyone less conflicted by agenda to discuss “Thinktanks” or Climate Science?
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/chatting-climate-heretic/
Quite straightforward, Judith. I mean that
From 7 to 3 in a few years – admirable intellectual honesty
Breaking News
Market-Judgment Favors Hansen/Oreskes
Rejected: Watts/Curry/GWPF/Cato/Heartland/CEI skepticism
• Forbes Rift Widening Between Energy And Insurance Industries Over Climate Change
• Business Insider An Insurance Company Is Suing 200 Illinois Towns For Not Being Better Prepared For Climate Change
• Naomi Oreskes Told yah so!
Conclusion The Koch brothers can buy astro-turfers and politicians more cheaply than businessmen and scientists.
That’s common sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
Hypocrite FOMD conveniently ignores billionaire Tom Steyer buying candidates and politicians with $100,000,000
in the context of USA funding sources, all the psychotics raging against Koch bros. etc., or tiny tiny GWPF abroad, never pause to notice huge left-wing funders such as the Tides Foundation, set up specifically to “launder” money from anonymous donors to radical activist groups (including ofc many concerned with climate activism at least in part:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5184
waiting for people like Michael et al. to pause in their hypocrisy and turn attention to Tides Foundation et al.
What are you waffling about Skippy?
Climate Central is simply a political advocacy group. Heidi Cullen works for them. They don’t do any science but instead act as a defense attorney for CAGW.
I figured I’d just drop off this little beauty for my much beloved “skeptics” who claim something on the order of: “Most skeptics don’t doubt that the Earth is warming or that part of that warming is attributable to ACO2, they only question the magnitude of the influence of ACO2.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/gwlatest.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1400690412524
Rip away your quotation marks, my friends. Embrace honest-to-God skepticism.
Joshua
Good that you pointed it out.
It is true that most CAGW skeptics “don’t doubt that the Earth is warming or that part of that warming is attributable to ACO2, they only question the magnitude of the influence of ACO2”.
Thanks.
Max
Another Joshua non-sequitur, the poll (regardless of dubious quality) has nothing to do with the point of the written words above it. For most people with a casual interest in pinhead climate debates the “last few decades” is pretty synonymous to 17 years 9 months without statistical warming. So they are essentially correct not that I put much value on the entire frame of discussion value of this point objectively either way.
So those of the left have a deep irrational belief in warming orthodoxy, shocking.
cwon –
“Skeptics” on these boards, when they aren’t explaining that “skeptics” aren’t monolithic (as indeed, they aren’t), characterize the belief of “skeptics” (w/o evidence other than their subjective analysis and anecdotal evidence) as “not doubting that the Earth is warming). The poll tells a different story.
Of course, if you have evidence otherwise, I mean something other than your anecdotal evidence filtered through your personal biases, please do present it. Until then, I will stick with the validated evidence. As imperfect at it is, it is far better than what you offer as a justification for your opinion.
I mean because you haven’t actually offered any. But please, do, feel free to go right ahead and offer some.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-9-months/
“Rip away your quotation marks, my friends. Embrace honest-to-God skepticism.”
The smug partisan ignorance that is refuted by your very own link.
cwon14 | May 22, 2014 at 7:31 am |
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:191/mean:193/offset:0.19/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193/last:48/plot/uah/mean:191/mean:193/offset:0.3/plot/gistemp/mean:191/mean:193/last:48/offset:-0.095
The 32 year trends on all four of RSS, GIS, HadCRU and UAH are in agreement on AGW. Anything less than 32 years is less than 99% reliable.
Whatever Monckton’s “algorithm”, it’s broken as all get out, or RSS is, or a bit of the former magnifying the faults of the latter.
Let’s have a look and see which one it might be:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:101/mean:103/offset:0.19/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:101/mean:103/last:216/plot/uah/mean:101/mean:103/offset:0.3/plot/gistemp/mean:101/mean:103/last:216/offset:-0.095
Whoa. Is RSS ever out of step with every other major measure of AGW. It looks like RSS has had an increasing cooling bias since 2002, after overrepresenting warming around 1998 — exactly the combination it would take to contribute to a false flat trend. Still RSS doesn’t get all the way there by itself. It has help from Moncton’s algothrithm and cherry picked endpoints.
It doesn’t take a great statistician to spot a lousy one. Fortunately, that means even you can spot Monckton’s fakery for what it is, with only a little help.
Everything we do is now political advocacy, sadly.
Compare Kerry’s commencement speech to the Boston College class of 2014 ( http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304198504579574383625245664 )
to the talk given by Feynman to the CalTech class of ’74.
SUT
That’s an unfair comparison between a real scientist and a ketchup-rich politician.
Max
Senator (chairman of un-American activities committee) to witness:
Are you now, or were you ever, a member or fellow-traveler of the Global Warming Policy Foundation or any directly or indirectly affiliated group?
Check your pillorage.
Speaking of suspicious and “laundered” Green PR money, here is a new video (undercover investigation) evidently showing actual Green movement PR leaders agreeing to accept secretive funding from “Middle Eastern oil” to make and market an anti-Fracking movie. The people shown in the video are Hollywood and PR types, but they reference leading NGOs they work with in the “movement” to end fracking in the USA.
Too funny, too funny….. this is a serious matter, but funny when leading Greens and Hollywood types get caught on film in a genuine conspiracy to hide Middle Eastern “oil” funding to make an anti-Fracking film for the “movement” ….
Anti-fracking fanatics get seriously PUNK*D
[emphasis added]
and also this, for the anti-fracking fans here and everywhere:
Hollywood Greens in real life anti-fracking conspiracy
We found from Years of Living Dangerously that Heartland get half their funding from one anonymous millionaire, and furthermore before they were into opposing climate change policies, they got their start as a pro-tobacco group. It seems that they are just mercenaries who do what they are paid to do with no moral compass. The interview with their own James Taylor was telling in that he didn’t care where their money came from. He just goes around opposing renewable energy without even asking that.
“anonymous millionaire” If he is anonymous, so are his motivations. You seem to know nevertheless.
Why would anybody, even a government, fund any scientist or science if it wasn’t for a reason? You pretend to know what the reasons are in every single case? There goes your credibility …
It is very sad that the people who work for Heartland don’t know who their main funders are, or even don’t want to know. It is a very unusual lack of curiosity when they are putting their life’s work into it. I don’t know how to interpret it. Perhaps for them a paycheck is a paycheck no matter who it comes from.
Jim D’s heart felt concern for the poor employees of Heartland is admirable. Please don’t be so sad. Your normal uplifting spirit is an inspiration to us all. (Quick, who’s got an air sick bag?)
Environmentalism has become a religion
Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, on where greens went badly wrong
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/environmentalism-has-become-a-religion/15033#.U3yTwvkpAur
Shoot! Dr. C, now you are going to make Dana and Cook write a paper on how 97% of some group agree that you are wrong.
Expecting Nuccitelli to be honset and factual is like expecting your pet dog to go out a fix your car.
Well, if a strange dog has pissed on a tire, my dog can fix it.
============
When in doubt, consult the tree rings;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-contrarians_b_5347614.html?utm_hp_ref=green
“we’re science you’re political. Got that?
==> “we’re science you’re political. Got that?”
We get that in every thread. It’s Judith’s basic thesis.
The BS to substance ratio has gotten out of control on this post. I am going to go and finish reading Nigel Lawson’s book.
Yes. Some moderation might help.
Mary Brown | May 23, 2014 at 9:55 am |
There’s no help for anyone so inverted as to think the ratio of BS to substance in Nigel Lawson does not approach infinity.
Bart R. Me too, I’m definitely fed up with your smear and your off-topic comments, If you don’t have anything to say, don’t say it here!
There’s no help for anyone so inverted as to think the ratio of BS to substance in Bart does not approach infinity.
Monumentally self-important, as a typical unthinking precommitted alarmist he resents simply that Lawson dares to dissent. No idea what Lawson actually says. All emotion, no substance. Textbook ‘consensus’ thinking.
OK, I have finished Lawson’s book and joined GWPF.
I will take Lawson and Lindzen over Obama/Kerry/Gore and Holdren any day of the week.
Oh, I meant to add:
Bart R………….Get a life!
‘zero examples of mainstream climate scientists joining political organizations‘
The writer invites us to ignore the elephant in the room – the indisputable fact that mainsteam mainstream climate is 95% political. Politically funded, serving only the interests of further politics, political correctness, and further politicisation of society. How else to explain the endemic and unrepentant dishonesty, bias and intolerance of dissent ?
So actually there are zero examples of mainstream climate scientists NOT joining a political organistion.
“I checked to see if Mann was involved with any advocacy groups”
How about RealClimate.org ?
That’s definitely an advocacy group although they would never admit that.
Pingback: L’affaire Bengtsson :: RESILIENCETV