by Judith Curry
UPDATE: new email from student that motivated “An open letter . .”
Every year at Thanksgiving, I am reminded of Climategate.
Over the Thanksgiving holiday in 2009, in the midst of extensive email discussions with Andy Revkin and Joe Romm (!), I penned my essay An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research. Which followed my essay (published at Climate Audit) On the credibility of climate research. In February 2010, I wrote an article Towards rebuilding trust. The main themes of my writings were concerns about:
- lack of transparency – need to make data and documentation publicly available
- tribalism among scientists and circling the wagons strategy: attacking skeptics with ad hominem attacks, appeal to motive attacks, isolating skeptics through lack of access to data, manipulation of the peer review process to reject skeptic papers
- the need for improved analysis and communication of uncertainty
Seems like motherhood and apple pie issues? Well maybe from the perspective of 2014. But in 2009/2010, this was heresy. One of the story lines from Climategate became me, and my engagement with skeptics:
- Discover Magazine: The big battle over climate science (profile of JC and Mann) April 2010
- Scientific American: Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on her Colleagues (Nov 2010)
So, what are we to make of all this 5 years later? The ‘establishment’ has maintained that Climategate was overhyped and irrelevant, and that the various enquiries have exonerated the scientists and the science. On the other hand, skeptics find Climategate to have been highly significant (found the inquiries to be bogus), and still discuss it.
There have been several interesting scholarly articles written on Climategate, including:
- Reiner Grundman: Legacy of Climategate
- Mike Hulme: After Climategate . . . Never the Same?
- Leiserowitz et al.: Legacy of Climategate
5 years later – meta issues
So, what has changed in the past 5 years and can any of it be attributed to Climategate?
Transparency has improved substantially. Journals and funding agencies now expect data to be made publicly available, along with metadata. The code for most climate models is now publicly available. As far as I know, there are no outstanding FOIA requests for data (other than possibly some of Mann’s HS data and documentation). Climategate shed a public light on the lack of transparency in climate science, which was deemed intolerable by pretty much everyone (except for some people who ‘owned’ climate data sets).
Understanding, documenting and communicating uncertainty has continued to grow in importance, and is the focus of much more scholarly attention. With regards to the IPCC, I feel that WG2 in AR5 did a substantially better job with uncertainty and confidence levels (I was not impressed with what WG1 did).
Improved understanding of the deep uncertainty surrounding climate change has stimulated more sophisticated decision making analyses, beyond the simple linear model of predict then act.
The IAC review of the IPCC (instigated by Climategate) highlighted a number of problems with the IPCC. The IPCC has made a token response to some of them, A number of serious scholarly critiques of the IPCC have been made (for a summary see Grundman article), with suggestions for reform. The problems with the IPCC remain endemic and serious, in my opinion (Kill the IPCC).
The IPCC AR5 arguably had a much smaller public impact than did the AR4. Climategate has probably contributed to some people not paying attention to the AR5. However, I think it was the failure of the AR5 to deal with the surface temperature hiatus in a significant way that resulted in this lessening impact.
Climategate illuminated a serious lack of leadership from the scientific and environmental communities. Has this improved any? Well IMO there remains a serious lack of leadership from the establishment communities (e.g. institutions). I regard the death of Steve Schneider perhaps to be significant in this regard. On the plus side, in this leadership vacuum there has been a growing number of diverse voices entering into the public discussion on climate change.
The sociology of climate science received a substantial impetus from Climategate. There have been a number of insightful analyses, which I’ve highlighted at CE, related to the politicization of science, and the social psychology of consensus building and groupthink. There have also been a number of dubious to nonsensical studies on deniers, etc.
Hulme’s article remarks that Climategate has triggered a new interest in studying and understanding the various manifestations of climate change skepticism. The populist notion that all climate sceptics are either in the pay of oil barons or are right-wing ideologues, as is suggested for example by studies such as Oreskes and Conway (2011), cannot be sustained.
There has been a huge growth in attention to climate science communication, within academic circles and NGO/advocacy groups. Climategate was a turning point: pronouncements from the IPCC were no longer sufficient. Apparently as a result of the IPCC pronouncements no longer being sufficient, we’ve also seen a substantial increase in the number of scientists acting as advocates for mitigation policies.
Institutionally, Climategate triggered the formation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which has become quite influential in UK climate policy and to some extent internationally.
Climategate also motivated the formation of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group. The significance of this group includes being private sector, transparency in data and methods, extensive website and prepublication press releases, and publication of their papers in a brand new online journal.
As a result of Climategate, there is little tolerance for the editorial gatekeeping ways of trying to keep skeptical papers from being published. I recall discussion in Climategate emails about a paper by Pat Michaels that found a climate sensitivity of 1.6C, that the Climategaters were trying to keep from being published. Hmmm . . . 1.6C sensitivity . . . seems pretty mainstream these days. The BEST publications in new online journals illustrate the waning stranglehold of the traditional high impact journal publications. We are even seeing skeptical papers being published in mainstream high impact journals (this is probably mostly attributable to the hiatus in warming).
The skeptical climate blogosphere has thrived and expanded, largely triggered by Climategate (Climate Etc. was triggered largely by Climategate). Whereas the ‘warm’ blogosphere for the most part has waned (notably RealClimate), with the exception of Skeptical Science. It seems that most of the ‘action’ on the warm side has switched to twitter, whereas skeptics prefer the blogosphere.
The growth of the technical skeptical blogosphere (pioneered by Steve McIntyre) has challenged traditional notions of expertise, i.e. credentials and sanctity of journal publications, through Climate Audit’s blogospheric deconstruction of many publications, particularly related to paleo proxies. While the technical skeptical blogosphere seems to have provided the motive for the Climategate ‘hack’, the technical skeptical blogosphere has thrived, and many of these sites are followed by the media and decision makers of various stripes.
And finally, what about climate policy and politics? Following the 2007 publication of the AR4 and through summer 2009, it seemed that climate (CO2 mitigation) policy was on an unstoppable juggernaut and that the COP in Copenhagen (Dec 2009) and U.S. carbon cap and trade legislation was on track. By summer 2010, all of that had fallen apart. Regarding the UN negotiations, most analysts have stated that Climategate played little role; it was all about raw politics and economics. But I suspect that as a result of Climategate, climate science/scientists had lost the moral high ground, allowing raw politics and economics to take over. But in the U.S., it seems that Climategate had a more palpable impact on climate legislation. Senator James Inhofe stated that Climategate was the death knell of carbon cap and trade legislation. More significantly, I saw somewhere that John Kerry said essentially the same thing (tho I can’t find the link).
Engaging with skeptics
5 years ago, my engagement with skeptics was sufficiently unusual and surprising to be picked up by the mainstream media. Particularly in the UK, Netherlands and Germany, post-Climategate there are welcome efforts by climate scientists to engage with skeptics (academic, blogosphere, policy foundations) and skeptics are taken seriously in the media. The Dutch effort ClimateDialogue is particularly notable in this regard.
In the U.S. (and Australia and Canada), the situation remains much more polarized. A recent exchange illustrates the differences in the UK versus the US. You may recall that several months ago, Nic Lewis hosted a dinner that included some skeptics (incl. Anthony Watts) as well as some climate scientists (including Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards). Well Tim Ball recently wrote an article at WUWT People starting to ask about motive for massive IPCC deception, with a lengthy quote from Mein Kampf, Building on their engagement with Watts, Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts responded over at WUWT with a post A big (goose) step backwards, where they criticize Ball’s post for the Mein Kampf quote and for snide remarks about the IPCC, without actually engaging with the real content of the post. Anthony responds in a conciliatory way, stating that Ball’s article was posted at a time when he was unavailable to exercise any editorial control.
Seems like a rather small deal, no? Well the 1100 comments at WUWT were absolutely vitriolic against Betts and Edwards. On twitter, the vitriolic comments were coming from the warm side, i.e. how stupid they were to post at WUWT. There is some relatively sane discussion of this over at ATTP, including comments from Betts and Edwards. The most interesting comment IMO is from Eli Rabett:
They had invested effort and taken stick for their let’s break bread position without it ever being clear what the other side was offering them for making the effort. Having done the early Judy trick they found themselves at a fork in the road, and either had to cash in some of their winnings, fold, or go the way of Curry.
They chose a straddle, trying to play nice with Watts while condemning Ball. At the same time Tamsin is tweeting like crazy to defend the other flank. This may have slightly moved their Overton window, or not.
Well, it seems Betts and Edwards are trying to promote civility, something that the UK does pretty well. Presumably they thought that posting at WUWT would be like posting at BishopHill. NOT. Climate change and social media is mostly blood sport over in the US (and Australia and Canada), where the situation remains very polarized and polarizing.
Regarding scientists that are skeptical of AGW or critical of the IPCC, they seem to be better off post-Climategate (in terms of getting journal articles published and interviews from mainstream media) and a larger population of such scientists have emerged. This can partly be attributed to Climategate, but again I think the hiatus is a bigger factor. Life for a scientist that is skeptical of ‘consensus’ climate science or critical of the IPCC is definitely easier post-Climategate.
Mann vs et al.
Climategate lives on in the lawsuits than Michael Mann has filed against CEI, National Review Online, Rand Simberg, and Mark Steyn. For background, see these previous posts:
The lawsuit is related to the ‘fraudulent hockey stick’ that was illuminated by the Climategate emails. Climategate considerably broadened public awareness of the hockey stick and the associated controversies, making it an icon for concerns about climate science and scientists. This post is getting too long, so I don’t want to get into this subject any more here, but with these lawsuits there is no denying that the impacts of Climategate are still playing out.
Personal impact
My own saga, after the three essays I wrote immediately following Climategate (referenced above), was set in place with these three essays:
- Interview with Keith Kloor: Curry the backstory 4/27/2010
- Response to Scientific American: Heresy and the Creation of Monsters 10/25/2010
- Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop 11/3/2010
Particularly with the last two essays, I established myself as an ‘outsider’ to the climate ‘establishment’ and incurred the wrath of many of climate scientists (the feedback loop article is particularly hard hitting, read it if you missed it the first time). The Scientific American article played no small role in my ‘radicalization’ at this time; it set me on a path where I no longer judged anything that I did in context of my academic peers in the climate science community.
Intellectually, I embarked on my ‘uncertainty odyssey’ following the March 2010 Royal Society Workshop on Scientific Uncertainty, which stimulated the publication of these two papers in 2011 that seeded the uncertainty series in the early days of Climate Etc:
This uncertainty odyssey spilled over into decision making under uncertainty, a topic I had been exploring since 2004 with the preparation of a major NSF STC proposal Environmental Predictions and Decisions, which made the semi-finals but was not funded. I explored the issue of decision making under deep uncertainty in numerous blog posts, plus these papers published in 2012:
By the time 2011 rolled around, my ostracization by the climate establishment was pretty complete, so I redefined (broadened) my academic peer group to include physicists, social scientists and philosophers (not to mention the extended peer community developed on my blog). I found this much more stimulating and interesting than the circled wagons of the climate community.
To assess the personal impact of Climategate, I’m trying to figure out exactly where my head was at prior to Climategate in 2009. Wherever; I’m not sure it matters anymore. In 2014, I no longer feel the major ostracism by my peers in the climate establishment; after all, many of the issues I’ve been raising that seemed so controversial have now become mainstream. And the hiatus has helped open some minds.
The net effect of all this is that my ‘academic career advancement’ in terms of professional recognition, climbing the administrative ladder, etc. has been pretty much halted. I’ve exchanged academic advancement that now seems to be of dubious advantage to me for a much more interesting and influential existence that that feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.
Bottom line: Climategate was career changing for me; I’ll let history decide if this was for better or worse (if history even cares).
Conclusion
In conclusion, I will quote this statement from Reiner Grundman:
We need much more reflection on this case which should not be closed off because of political expediency. The debate has only just begun.
UPDATE: I just received this email from the student whose email, following my ClimateAudit essay, motivated my post “An open letter . . .”
Hi Judy,
I hope all is well. It is amazing that climategate was five years ago. I just successfully defended my dissertation in September and have started the xxxx Fellowship. It is going to be an exciting year learning about policy making. :-)
I just wanted to send you a short note regarding your latest post – The legacy of climategate: 5 years later.
I still stand by my statements in the email all those years ago and although, months and years may turn into decades, you continue to inspire me.
History will decide. And it will care and what has happend was for the better.
All the best,
Pingback: ClimateGate, Five Years Later | Transterrestrial Musings
An important event to be sure but the signs of political indoctrination and corruption were known from the inception of the AGW agenda. Harping about Climategate is a sign of incoherence to the overriding factors found in leftist academic pseudoscience, the cabal of like minded media and government agenda. Dr. Curry always appears out of touch in the general demeanor regarding the event as if 25 years and more of green activism and fanaticism weren’t obvious before Climategate. I could understand if she were in a different field or from another planet but as an insider it’s obtuse.
The details about Climategate just weren’t that surprising to those paying attention to the “agenda” anytime before it. It looks and feels like a low information discussion if people claim it as decisively informative or significant.
I certainly was not paying attention to the political agenda of the lock-step consensus science movement before Climategate emails surfaced in 2009.
O, if you were aware or not does that change what was obviously true about global arm-chair socialism(Club of Rome etc.), U.N. Agenda/IPCC collaboration and the use of populist anti-carbon/anti-industrialism to focus around the AGW meme long before Climategate??
That’s the point, if you can’t see what was obvious to many even in retrospect or worse you can’t overcome your political predisposition to admit your complicity in what was clearly a political drive not a science based response LONG BEFORE CLIMATEGATE trying to make CG a watershed event looks disingenuous or worse. The dots aren’t that hard to connect and Dr. Curry only refuses to connect them in some sort of imagined middling or peace keeping deal fantasy between skeptics and fellow statists.
Carthage must be destroyed, there will never be a deal or pardons unless the full acknowledgement of politicized corruption of the AGW agenda is fully disclosed and admitted by a serious science community that may well not exist again as even a majority if recent Western history indicates. AGW was on par with Soviet levels of contrivance long before CG and I find it disinformative that Dr. Curry could think of CG as anything less than a confirmation of what serious skeptics said decades before CG. Yes, it’s a whitewash in its own right.
It is true that anybody who followed McIntyre’s blog before Climategate could have been forgiven if they thought that Steve wrote the emails, since they contained no surprises to those who had been paying attention. What was shocking is that they became public.
cwon14, I’ve been involved in the issue since the 1980s, and was first publicly attacked by rabid warmists in 1989-90; but I would not say that “25 years and more of green activism and fanaticism were obvious before Climategate.” Those with relevant interest and knowledge were few and far between for a long time, it’s time you welcomed the movement that Judith has made, and her positive contribution to sanity, rather than harp on constantly because – like other apolitical climate scientists not directly involved in IPCC machinations – she was unaware of the political triggers and agenda for the CAGW scare.
Faustino
Dr. Stavins has a blog post up that you might find of interest:
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/12/01/what-to-expect-at-cop-20-in-lima/?utm
I was reading the monthly “Virginia Climate Report” written by Dr Patrick Michaels (the State Climatologist) at UVA in the early ’80s, and he already identified the political incorrectness he was facing about supposed climate change. Eventually he was punished/pushed aside at University of VA and as State Climatologist.
So the “issue” for me & other engineers where I was working was already obvious by the early ’80s.
That’s right beng, “obvious” by the early 80’s and even early for others which is why Dr. Curry’s near or about 2006 “epiphany” that skepticism in the face of a theory devoid of empirical evidence or even logic deserves to be questioned. She’s lamenting life outside the NYTimes leftist bubble culture like a Soviet defector’s claim of missing the motherland in the 1950’s. Sorry, the stakes for freedom are/were a little higher then that for many in the brazen distortion of “science” to shove essentially a Marxist carbon control plan down the worlds throat long before CG. That CG is so pivotal in the commentary reflects how out-of-touch to the broader issues of the climate agenda her narrative remains.
“First they tell you that you’re wrong, and they can prove it.
Then they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important.
Then they tell you it’s important, but they’ve known it for years.”
CF Kettering, Time Magazine July 11, 1969, pg 54.
I started following your blog a while back and I was delighted to find what seemed to me a voice of carefully reasoned rationality and clear scientific thinking. My opinion has not changed over time, rather it has been reinforced. Thank you for this excellent post. You are probably better off not miring yourself in administration because as satisfying as it may be to solve other people’s problems, those who do so almost invariably stop publishing on their own.
Judith – an excellent, reflective and insightful piece. Your journey is a signal to many that there is life beyond the cartel of climate science..
Every year, during the Holiday Season, thoughtful citizens reflect upon a world in which the sea-level is rising, the ocean-water is heating and acidifying, the polar ice is melting, record heat-waves become more likely, droughts are deepening, and CO2 levels are increasing …
… all without pause or evident human-lifetime limit.
Most folks regard these realities as *FAR* more serious than leaked (and boring!) emails, eh Climate Etc readers?
That’s why more-and-more folks are reflecting soberly upon
the cognitive traits of confidently ignorant denialism, which include:
• ignorance that feels like knowledge, and
• bluster that feel like confidence, and
• denial that feels like skepticism, and
• prejudice that feels like conviction, and
• cherry-picking that feels like data, and
• nut-jobbery that feels like creative genius, and
• short-sightedness that masquerades as pragmatism, and
• market-failures that masquerade as efficiency
These cognitive traits are distressingly common, eh Climate Etc readers?
Still we can be optimistic that the prevalence of these traits is diminishing, as the “pause” ends and the science strengthens!
a fan of *MORE* discourse: • ignorance that feels like knowledge, and
Maybe you know the answer to my questions.
1. If the Earth surface warms by 1C, how much does the rate of evaporative-transpirational transfer of energy from surface to upper troposphere change?
2. Does that change increase or decrease the cloud cover? — In what regions?
3. Does it increase or decrease rainfall? — in what regions?
4. In the places and times that generally produce evaporation (e.g. early summer days in the American Midwest), what are the net effects of an increase of 4W/m^2 downwelling LWIR? (evaporation, cloud cover, rainfall.)
My ignorance of these topics feels much like ignorance. If you know who has the information and where it has been published, please share it. As you probably know, Romps et al recently derived the result that a 1C increase in the surface temperature would produce a 12% increase in the lightning rate; apparently with no increase in the rate of evaporative-transpirational energy transfer that produces the clouds, rain, and lightning in the first place. Perhaps you can fill in the gap here between the surface warming and the lightning bolt increase.
Soberly considering the forest — as contrasted with ideologically cherry-picking the trees — lead to the conclusions of (for example) Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change (2012).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8
That’s how responsible citizens (scientists especially!) read Nature’s tea-leaves, eh Matthew R Marler?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: That’s how responsible citizens (scientists especially!) read Nature’s tea-leaves, eh Matthew R Marler?
You and Hansen don’t know the answers either. You think it is “responsible” to ignore the non-radiative heat transport entirely.
Fan, I think you aim all this stuff at skeptics.
It makes a lot more sense to aim all this stuff at the consensus clique.
All good stuff, just aimed wrong.
Jibber-jabber.
A fan of *MORE* discourse :
• ignorance that feels like knowledge,
I think we will all bow to your superior knowledge there.
You are without the past master, after all.
Have you got to the bottom of Bose-Einstein yet, incidentally?
Anything but the science eh FOMD?
For Fan it’s still blood sport
If you can call waving the same old tired and dull butter knife around a “blood sport.”
Somehow I can’t picture Fan armed with anything more intimidating then an egg whisk.
Every year, during the Holiday Season, thoughtful citizens reflect upon a world in which the sea-level is rising, the ocean-water is heating, the polar ice is melting, heat-waves become more likely than deep freezes, CO2 levels are increasing and thank provenance that the opposite is not true.
Thank you very much for helping to debunk this religion masquerading as science. As a poor science.
Science must always be skeptic. Consensus agreement is not any kind of science.
A fascinating and thoughtful piece. Lots to agree with here, such as the lower level of political polarisation in the UK.. The only point I would slightly disagree with is on the blogosphere, where I think that some of the sceptic blogs have quietened down also, eg climate audit and the air vent.
and others – Lucia’s Blackboard, for example.
People behave badly. Climategate is just a drop in the bucket.
The real crime here is the lousy pile of dung that passes for Climate Science™.
Andrew
I don’t know if history will care but you will and, regardless of where the data takes us, you’ll be able to look back in 20 years and say you did the right thing.
Hi Judy – This is really an excellent post!
Your experiences are quite similar in a lot of ways to mine. Unfortunately, I do not see things improving as you note. We need more colleagues to be open about their perspectives, which they are only communicating in private. I have even been told that they are “afraid of losing their jobs” if they speak out.
As an example of how much more needs to be done to inform others, the call for ~250 million dollars for multi-decadal climate model predictions is another example in which others in our community are silent.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-forecasting-build-high-resolution-global-climate-models-1.16351?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20141120
The headline of that article is
“International supercomputing centres dedicated to climate prediction are needed to reduce uncertainties in global warming, says Tim Palmer.”
with text that reads
“Against the cost of mitigating climate change — conceivably trillions of dollars — investing, say, one quarter of the cost of the Large Hadron Collider (whose annual budget is just under US$1 billion) to reduce uncertainty in climate-change projections is surely warranted. Such an investment will also improve regional estimates of climate change — needed for adaptation strategies — and our ability to forecast extreme weather.”
These funds could be put to much more societally and environmentally beneficial purposes, including improvement of short- and season-term weather forecasts, and also the reduction of vulnerabilities to key resources, as we proposed in our book
Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition. J. Adegoke, F. Hossain, G. Kallos, D. Niyoki, T. Seastedt, K. Suding, C. Wright, Eds., Academic Press, 1570 pp. http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780123847034
Until the leadership in the climate issue becomes enlightened, we are going to continue to see such self-serving calls for money.
Roger Sr.
Head on.How can we predict climate for 100 years when there is no consistently reliable weather forecast for 100 hours.
The climate models should be a natural outgrowth of successful weather forecasting models. That’s where our money should go. Somehow, IPCC folks think that running a bad model 10,000 times tells us something about climate. It does not.
We don’t need 20 good models We only need one. We have none.
+1
Actually Piers Corbyn has an 85% accuracy rate, but then he’s an astrophysicist, not a climate modeler. See his interesting site. http://weatheraction.com/
Judycross,
A naive forecast, projecting tomorrow’s weather to be the same as today’s, plus or minus ten percent, has a success rate of around 86%, if memory serves me correctly.
In some locations, the percentage is somewhat greater, in others somewhat less. Any fool can forecast. It takes a special fool to forecast better than a twelve year old with a pencil and a straight edge.
Try it. You might be surprised.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
If Piers Corbyn keeps getting it wrong has he lives in a commercial world people stop paying him and he goes out of business , where has if the MET keep getting it wrong has government organisation , they get more money thrown at them , that is very big difference.
I have even been told that they are “afraid of losing their jobs” if they speak out.
Exactly how many climate scientists have said this to you? What are their names?
JCH, thanks for the funniest comment of the week!
JCH, this is a very real concern. Back in 2009-2010 when I was collecting signatures to get the American Chemical Society to revisit the ACS Public Policy Statement on Global Warming, several academics voiced similar fears to me, of being ostracized and marginalized within their departments and colleges for holding a skeptical viewpoint vis-a-vis AGW. Groupthink is an dysfunctional behavior seen in many organizations and by no means limited to the issue of global warming, but it is quite real. “Go along to get along” may be politically the path of least resistance, but it is no way to go about finding truth and knowledge.
Lol. As if he would tell you.
How many and what are their names.
They only tell people they trust. I know some. They decide when it is safe for their families and careers.
Nearly all climate scientists are afraid of losing their jobs. How many would we need, if CO2 is benign? I will help you: If climate is just the average of weather, we can get by nicely with our local TV station meteorologists and the national weather services.
Mea culpa. Writing 500 times on the black board a la Bart Simpson: I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. Etc.
I think the new congress should call him in and force him to reveal the names of the climate scientists who told him “they are “afraid of losing their jobs” if they speak out.”
There is no reason to keep their names a secret. Doing so is covering up a scandal. Why would you cover up a scandal? Doing that is cowardly.
Pete
You bet it is a concern. Anyone who has worked in a large organization knows the dynamics involved with something like this.
Nobody is going to get fired except the people who would have fired the climate scientists who confided in Pielke.
Inhofe will maker sure of that.
Throw in the people who are blocking Judith Curry’s career advancement, and Inhofe has at least two or three hours of riveting TV.
You have Roger and Judy’s word on it, solid-gold evidence, and all Inhofe needs are the names.
And it looks suspicious to not give them up.
If you really want the list of names, nimrod, you will have to file a lawsuit and FOIA, then endure about 6 years of stonewalling, before on some Friday evening before a long holiday weekend you get a list, with the names redacted. A little trick we have learned from the most transparently dishonest administration in history.
I have to have a FOIA in order for Pielke and Curry to tell Inhofe the names? Lol. I think all they have to do is call his office and be brave and courageous and truthful.
JCH
How about a little waterboarding too.
Force them? Uncle Joe forced em’ to cough it up. Ahh yes the efficiency of the Soviet style. I get now.
JCH, as one whose career was prematurely ended and health damaged because I stood up for truth, integrity, intellect and analytical rigour in government policy-making against the self-serving bureaucrats whose concern was telling the minister what he wanted to hear, in line with factional interest, and secure their own advancement, I can full understand why people more circumspect and worldly than me would be reluctant to voice CAGW scepticism. And I’m delighted that there are people like Judith and the Pielkes who do question the orthodoxy.
JCH, just in case you don’t know, I’m a retired economic policy officer – mainly for central bodies in the UK and Australia – called Michael Cunningham. In 1997 the Queensland State Cabinet accepted my advice on CAGW & Kyoto as their policy. After having many papers written for a body chaired by the Prime Minister published, I wrote the economic development strategies for both ALP and Coalition governments in Queensland. My job as head of economic policy branch was dissolved after an ALP win on the basis of the enmity of an over-promoted nonentity and very nasty person who was to head Treasury! Years later, I had work on innovation, intellectual property, Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist, major project evaluations and various other issues disappeared, although it was never challenged or refuted (my innovation paper was eventually released under someone else’s name). When, after three years, Treasury realised that abolishing my branch had ceded the field to a rabidly-interventionist department, they decided to set up a much larger branch, but kept me at a distance. An hour before the Treasury Deputy (Economics) and my then boss who was to head the new unit were to meet and finalise the unit’s structure and work program, she came to me and said they had no agenda, no program, no idea of what the unit might do. In an hour, I knocked out a work program. Seeing my work, the Deputy realised that their plans were nonsense, and reworked them around my policy agenda. But I was never allowed near it. I now recall an earlier incident, when I was not allowed near a new economic development strategy; but immediately before publication, I was secretly shown a copy – it was appalling – and asked to write within an hour or two an Executive Summary of what the strategy should look like. It was then re-written around my Exec Sum, but my role was never acknowledged. Etc, etc. After forced retirement, I got to tear to shreds in public the next totally nonsensical government economic development strategy, my published paper was aimed at driving better policy-making; I was informed by someone who formerly worked for me that a plethora of e-mails and phone calls flew round Treasury – not on how they could revise policy but, being unable to refute anything I said, how they could cover their backs and minmise flak for the rubbish the government had signed off on. So, JCH, there’s a case history for you.
JCH – did you miss the point in Dr. Curry’s posting:
The net effect of all this is that my ‘academic career advancement’ in terms of professional recognition, climbing the administrative ladder, etc. has been pretty much halted.
There are a lot of people who have mortgages, bills, families, etc. who can’t afford to take the risk that their career will be cut short – why on earth would Dr. Curry out them? She has already paid a price for her honesty, is it fair to force others to do the same without their consent?
It is a question of honour, and I respect Dr. Curry a great deal for practicing it.
–Don Monfort | December 1, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
Nearly all climate scientists are afraid of losing their jobs. How many would we need, if CO2 is benign? I will help you: If climate is just the average of weather, we can get by nicely with our local TV station meteorologists and the national weather services.–
They afraid to lose the jobs not because there nothing to do related
to climate science but because of climate activist will try to target them to get them fired.
And because they get jobs or lose jobs by being member of good standing in the herd.
Another aspect is lack of a theory as useful as the greenhouse theory.
The greenhouse theory gives one easy answer, a wrong answer gives more comfort than not knowing the answer.
I think quite a mistake to imagine that this majority has any real interest in science. The pseudo science nature of business has already preselected them.
But if one could predict and understand climate, this is greatly needed and has great worth.
By Zeus, Faustino!
It seems yer right again!
Time fer yer hemlock!
Apologies / Plato’s Phaedo.
5243.74
Their names are all John Smith (by pure chance).
my name is John Smith
I am not a climate scientist
for which, after reading this blog, I am thankful
If you want a lot of names of scientists who are not afraid to speak out, go read about them and listen to their words at:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/
There have been 9 Climate Change Conferences with speakers from all over the world. My wife and I attended Conference 9. I already did know and had listened to and talked to 8 of the speakers.
My introduction to Climate Study was a lecture by Tom Wysmuller to our NASA Alumni league in 2008. I have listened to Tom and talked to Tom, many times since then. look at his website.
http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Home.html
I have attended many lectures by scientists on the different sides. I even met and listened to a lecture by Michael Mann at Texas A&M. He was still pushing his hockey stick.
I understand JCH’s role model is named Hop Sing.
JCH, six years ago, I lived in Boulder, CO. At my church, I befriended two members that were climate scientists. One at NOAA was a very senior scientist with a large portfolio of publications. He confided in me that he has kept his skepticism a secret for fear of losing his job or given meaningless assignments. The second individual was doing his postdoc at NCAR. His job was to read research journals and find papers that supported CAGW. He came across several convincing papers that were skeptical. When he suggested to his senior mentor that these papers should be considered, he was told that there was no interest in pursuing that approach. He decided he needed to find another position perhaps in the private sector.
Here’s a relevant recent comment from WUWT:
David Legates also had quite a tale to tell of the harassment he received from the U. of Delaware.
‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/369/1956/4751/F2.large.jpg
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/369/1956/4751.full
On the other hand – defining climate prediction as a probability density from a perturbed physics ensemble might be a cheap wake up call.
A nice picture. But it assumes that the model is not wrong – that it suffers from an “uncertainty”, not from a systematical error. Maybe you could point me to a detailed analysis of an uncertainty of your favorite model.
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. Plausibility criteria are qualitative and loosely quantitative, because there are many relevant measures of plausibility that cannot all be specified or fit precisely. Results that are clearly discrepant with measurements or between different models provide a valid basis for model rejection or modification, but moderate levels of mismatch or misfit usually cannot disqualify a model. Often, a particular misfit can be tuned away by adjusting some model parameter, but this should not be viewed as certification of model correctness.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Have you quite grasped the idea that ‘the picture’ is a schematic of feasible solutions of a single model? And not a map of solutions from different models?
Rob – we are not communicating well, which is a pity, because I have a feeling that you have a real message – unfortunately it is not coming through. I’ll try to describe my position: The “model uncertainty” in your picture I interpret as leading to different results from a single set of initial conditions. I can accept that with an analog computer; with a digital computer – where an absolute repeatability is usually desired – it would mean using a pseudo-random generator in the code (a “Monte Carlo” approach). I did not know that climate models worked that way. Dame Slingo’s paper that you quote attributes the “model uncertainty” to “the representation of sub-gridscale processes”. I would love to see an estimate of that effect; please provide a link. Finally, if you don’t care whether a model is correct or not, I do.
Rob Ellison: The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. Plausibility criteria are qualitative and loosely quantitative, because there are many relevant measures of plausibility that cannot all be specified or fit precisely. Results that are clearly discrepant with measurements or between different models provide a valid basis for model rejection or modification, but moderate levels of mismatch or misfit usually cannot disqualify a model.
Comments such as that have been used to justify confidence in the GCMs. The difficulty is assessing “moderate” levels of mismatch or misfit. How good a fit should be considered good enough does not seem to have been publicly debated.
‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Curious – we are talking from vastly different perspectives and I can see why but the transition to the threshold concept in the two papers I linked is quite difficult. It is a fundamentally different idea.
Initial values and grid size are interrelated issues. Grid sizes are related to computing power – smaller grid increase the number of calculation exponentially. This results in practical grid sizes that are relatively coarse. Below this grid size are processes of fundamental impostence to climate that need to be parametised – and there are uncertainties in the parametisation that create initial differences. All of the inputs in fact have a range of feasible values that create initial differences that propagate through time in divergent solutions. So there are very many feasible and divergent solutions. This is what McWilliams refers to as irreducible imprecision and Slingo and Palmer as uncertainty in prediction of weather and climate. It leads to the schematic I linked to showing a range of feasible solutions to any model – and hence the need for a probabilistic rather than deterministic solution space.
Models certainly work with ‘necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model’. The structural instability – the divergence of solutions starting from slightly different initial values for data – uncertainties in boundary conditions – are magnified through deterministic chaos in the non-linear equations at the core of the machine.
The plausibility of the algorithms and the coupling is another question entirely. All of the models have problems with regional and natural variation. Is there much point in the models at all? Not for current policy purposes – but I withhold judgment on the long term value. .
Curious George,
You may be misunderstanding the nature of chaos, at least as I understand it. Chaos evolves as an iterative process, where each value is determined by the results of the preceding one. Take for example the simple equation x = 4ax(1-x). Depending on the initial value you choose for x, successive iterations may result in a steady state, or may result in a series of bifurcations, swinging from small to large values on successive iterations, or chaotic behaviour, where the result of the next iteration is impossible to predict.
Unfortunately, it may be impossible to determine whether a system is chaotic or merely random, purely by observation of its output.
With a few coloured pencils and a hand held calculator – in the interests of saving time – you can produce the infinite complexity of the Mandelbrot set by iterating a ridiculously simple equation z=z^2 + c. I don’t know how to do subscripts, but it’s pretty simple.
The interesting thing is that chaotic systems have sensitivity to initial conditions. This can mean that starting off the iterations with arbitrarily small differences in initial values can quickly lead to wildly diverging answers. Unfortunately, it seems that many scientists find this hard to accept. Edward Lorenz was not one of them, fortuitously. His work is well worth looking at, particularly in the light of his meteorological background.
Sorry to go on, but I love chaos.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Here’s how to do a Mandelbrot by hand. It is not all that relevant – but builds pretty pictures – automated at any of a number of sites – with enough iterations.
http://www.wikihow.com/Plot-the-Mandelbrot-Set-By-Hand
The nonlinear Lorenz equations are:
dx/dt = P(y – x)
dy/dt = Rx – y – xz
dz/dt = xy – By
where P is the Prandtl number representing the ratio of the fluid viscosity to its thermal conductivity, R represents the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the system, and B is the ratio of the width to height of the box used to hold the system. The values Lorenz used are P = 10, R = 28, B = 8/3. It simply gives values for changes in x, y and z with changes in time t – allowing the system of equations to be solved through time in three dimensions from an initial starting point.
You can create a Lorenz ‘butterfly’ with an executable Java file downloaded from here – http://www.compadre.org/osp/items/detail.cfm?ID=8986 . The wings are known as attractor basins and the solution unpredictably shifts from one basin to the other through a saddle node bifurcation. Using slightly different inputs changes the trajectory of the solution through time – it diverges unpredictably from the original solution.
Climate models have an equivalent set of non-linear equations at the core.
Bob – thank you for a detailed explanation. Fortunately, our positions are not vastly different. I agree – assuming that our models faithfully represent a chaotic climate system – that the best we can do in the long term is to map the chaotic attractor, one point at a time. But that is a big and unproven assumption. I have shown that a CAM5.1 model overestimates a heat transfer by water evaporation from tropical seas by 2.5% or more. – http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
If models don’t even have basic thermodynamic properties of water right, why should we assume that a chaotic attractor exhibited by the model has anything to do with a chaotic attractor of the real climate system? Two examples of a 2.5% error:
1) Consider a model that has a day that’s only 23 1/2 hours long. Its climate would probably resemble the Earth, but I don’t dare to estimate long-term consequences.
2) Consider a model that has a triple point of water 267 degrees K instead of 273 K. Running from today’s initial conditions you would see a rapid melting of polar caps and a significant long-term warming trend.
I agree with both you and Dame Slingo that running a good model 10,000 times yields valuable insights. But not running CAM 5.1 or its ilk.
Rob – apologies. I should have addressed you as Rob, not Bob. :-(
Money is factor Dr. Pielke but as Dr. Ball points out The Club of Rome had all the money anyone could ever need at starting point. After money comes power, the worst form of greed. Greens by in large are more privileged, monied and desire authority over others. Yes, crony profits have been divided but the bond of climate change advocacy is political culture code to dictate authority based on arrogance which is the measure of the American and global leftist orthodox.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/29/the-role-of-the-media-in-aiding-and-abetting-the-deceptions-seen-in-climategate/
Political, cultural authority is far more important to the media, academic left and and associated political sector by its very nature. Conservatives stand to only lose standing against the statist undercurrents of climate authority which is why the agenda has been largely dissected. Campus funding might bind large diverse groups and climate rent seeking is part of it but the fanaticism of AGW is far more to schism politics of the radicals that ascended around Obamaism. It should be rooted out and destroyed.
After the power, comes the women.
Not necessarily Don, I always feel more powerful when the woman comes first.
Hmm…I lost mine.
After a discussion with Rob Ellison I propose to develop an interval arithmetic floating point unit (FPU) for climate modeling supercomputers. It should be only a modest amount of design, a part which would round results up and a part that would round results down. That should make interval computation only about twice slower than using a standard FPU. Tim Palmer proposes to spend a quarter billion dollars; this hardware development cost would be only a drop in the river.
Interval arithmetic neatly encompasses uncertainties arising from a divergence of solutions in a chaotic system, from uncertain initial parameters, and from an effect of a coarse grid. Dame Slingo has been complaining about those effects – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/369/1956/4751.full. Now we have at least a potential method to obtain a whole range of solutions including an uncertainty at the same time – without having to run the model 10,000 times. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042700003423
There are other considerations as well. When we use naive algorithms, we find frequently that the computed interval grows very fast. We have to develop new numerical methods that limit the growth of uncertainty. First attempts in 1970s by Prof. Nickel’s team have shown that it was very practical to include also a “standard” floating point value within the interval, yielding a “triplex” number.With an availability of 128-bit FPUs the interest in interval analysis waned, but now we have an important application that seems to demand it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
And then what – deafening silence?
“The debate has only just begun.”
_____
That really just depends on how quickly serious human civilization impacting climate change forces its way to the front burner of urgency, and the entire consensus-seeking political process of creating the watered-down IPCC reports therefore takes a back-burner.
Sure, the debate about tribalism, “circling the wagons”, etc. is ALWAYS important in terms of keeping the scientific process as intact as any fallible human process can be. But the assumption regarding the “debate has only begun” presumes that humans will have the luxury of debating in the face of a changing climate. There might be other, more urgent issues to debate, like the ethics of geoengineering, or allowing the “have nots” to continue to develop on a fossil-fuel based paradigm, etc.
The Climategate debate therefore, might die a premature death, if indeed, it has not already in the world at large, outside of certain extremely narrow group.
Oddly, the “narrow group” seems quite able to block the majority of economy killing ideas that the green left proposes, and those that haven’t been blocked are dying on their own. Interesting that you think that “circling the wagons” is valid science and that blocking skeptical points of view protects the “scientific process.”
History will judge you kindly. History will judge others who could have and should have joined you (Gerald North, etc.) as putting personal and peer profit over scientific progress in a political environment.
Judith Curry you did not mention the migration to climate change issues of a host of people in many sciences who saw as fraudulent: “The science is settled.” Climate Science the Consensus is an anathema to scientists in general and particularly doesn’t apply climate science. The smell bad of climate science drew the attention of many passer-bys. Anthony Watts provides a blog with fast paced tidbits of science and politic as well as a lengthy commentary. You have provided a site for both learning and discourse which RealClimate abrogated when it went into its defensive shell, peering through portholes in the edifice, sniping at any and all who suggested: ” that an’t so”.
Climategate as a watershed for the environmental movement more likely than not will go down as a moment when environmental issues and organizations lost their way down the CO2 rabbit hole. Their blind allegiance to the IPCC, their money from the monied left, destined their radicalization and progressively extremist positions. GreenPeace, World Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and many others are no longer on my “contribution” list. Many NGOs with an environmental flavor, who even are religiously affiliated may be suffering in contributions and in particular clout.
What seems to have gained in attention, after Climategate and maybe because of the hiatus, is a confrontational attitude to the “consensus view” on energy. This is more evident as the climate catastrophists’s push for intermittent and unsustainable “renewable” energies which is now discussed in economic terms, including economic viability without significant governmental subsidies.
What has also become evident, that the involvement of purported selective environmental casualties (island nations disappearing beneath the ocean waves) is being contrasted to the plight of people in the present day energy poverty and the war on fossil fuels.
Although not stated by the Republican landslide in the recent USA election, Climategate, the hiatus, and unilateral declarations by Obama and rule making of EPA, endangers EPA via funding limitations. What might transpire: a complete overhaul of the Clean Air Act and trashing of the Endangerment Finding and all those public servants who struggled mightily to implement coal’s energy demise via stifling regulation. It’s more than West Virginia at stake. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming and a smattering of others have been gored by EPA. Pretty soon, that leads to real Congressional votes.
Climategate is but a moment which helped begin a movement. The movement to dismantle climate science babble seems to have legs.
Remember that the Republicans did not win. The Democrats have lost. It is not the same thing. Plenty of work to do.
Rhetorical note: Islands are not disappearing beneath the ocean waves, at least due to change in waves. Virtually every coral island is dynamic, and builds and recedes with local ocean levels. Man can disrupt the cycles of coral growth and coral feeders which maintains this in several ways. The Maldives may come to rue the opportunistic building of mega-airports to sustain the tourist trade, e.g.
Good points, like all extreme subtopics….green culture, AGW in particular….it’s never been a referendum issue at a national level. Those interested know what more government means and will vote perhaps accordingly but likely in sequence to other policy directions.
Of course Obama is making it a cringe worthy acid test for Hillary who needs to fake being a moderate more than ever for a general election. Just as Obama did in 08′. The greens just might revolt and go full moon with likes of Warren etc. she can’t be happy seeing the EPA executive authority abuse and having the XL debate left for the 16′ cycle either in primaries or national elections.
When it gets close to broad referendum Greens are going to lose. This why they do most of their damage in small, opaque elitist circles.
Judith
All the 1100 comments on the Tim ball piece we’re not vitriolic against Betts and Tamsin. Two of the first comments Agreeing with them were from myself and Barry Woods.
We had both met up with Anthony Watts at Bristol just prior to the Mann talk And there is no doubt that Anthony was highly enthused and inspired by his meeting with Richatd and Tamsin and was in a conciliatory mood which suited the dozen or so of us who met up with him .
Richard Betts himself is a nice guy who went out of his way to introduce himself to me when I asked a question of the Ipcc reviewers at a climate conference in Exeter. I hope to meet up with him at the Met office one of these days whose scientists are unfailingly helpful and polite to me in my own resarch.
I see no need for vitriol but both sides have been very strident for a long time and have taken extreme positions.
I do not believe in hoaxes and conspiracies or that climat scientists are stupid. However there is an awful lot of Over certainty in climate science when in reality we still know very little, especially the further back in time you go. I have argued numerous times with John Kennedy of the Met Office, a fine scientist, we can not possibly know SSTs back to 1850.
Similarly we have no idea at all of the temperature of the deep oceans as Thomas Stocker admitted. More research and less certainty would be welcome
Tonyb
Tonyb,
” do not believe in hoaxes and conspiracies or that climat scientists are stupid.”
Oh, I believe in conspiracies and hoaxes. They’re all over the place. But the vast majority of them involve incompetents. They get caught all the time. Hell, the Watergate conspiracy was run by some of the smartest men in politics at the time (not Nixon, but Charles Colson, Robert Haldeman et al.), and it was an utter disaster.
But CAGW is not a hoax, nor a conspiracy. It is part of a political movement. Now the substantial majority of the simple folk who support it are unaware of that. But if you think the folks who run the NGOs, the US congressional staffers, and progressive technocrats in the various western bureaucracies who are writing the laws and regulations are not pushing a political/economic agenda, then there we would have to disagree. Those are the people for whom reduction of CO2 is just a means to an end.
I suspect that even most of the climate scientists, and many politicians, don’t understand the economics and politics behind what they are pushing. Al Gore is no genius. He probably believed every word in his unintentional comedy, An Inconvenient Truth. Michael Mann almost certainly really believes that he is a savior of the Earth.
I wrote elsewhere on this thread how I think BEST was much more a reaction to Anthony Watts’ surface stations project than climategate. But that does not make Muller a conspiracist or liar. He probably really believes he is a moderate. And his urge to rush to support the consensus was to him merely respect for “science.”
Default progressives (and they are the vast majority of progressives) don’t have a clue where the political agenda they support is actually intended to lead. Just ask one of them here to articulate a coherent economic policy. They really buy the “it’s for the children” and “we have to save the planet” nonsense. It feeds into their sense of who they are.
Which is why it is so hard for them to change their minds, about anything, ever. Conspiracists? No. Sheep? Well……..
1+, putting the “conspiracy” straw man in a proper place.
AGW is deeply rooted in leftist conspiracy culture as a starting point, Marxist and class war in essence.
I wasn’t part of the 1100 – I too felt that the use of Hitlerian references were detracting from the debate and said it had offended me. Said it sounded a bit like the extreme right were taking over WUWT. Got smacked by a ‘true believer’… There are cranks on all sides it seems. Not me though (or at least not too cranky).
I’m happy to report we “technical skeptics,” as you like to call us, Judith, are above distasteful and disgusting ad hom fray: http://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/tony-hellers-aka-steven-goddards-latest-and-greatest-insults/
I am pretty sure Judith Curry has never called you a technical skeptic. I also think anyone who does is wrong.
Oh, sorry. For a minute I failed to realize that isn’t Steven Goddard. It’s just someone who pretends to be Steven Goddard.
My comment still stands, but I should add I think whoever is behind that post/account is a dishonest creep who makes Goddard look less bad than he does.
Putting on a tin foil hat for a second: Maybe it really is Goddard and that’s the point.
As the Fonz would say, “incorrectamundo:” http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/
See the 2nd paragraph under her “Sociology of the technical skeptical blogosphere” heading of her blog post.
All those insults on that page I linked you to are the real deal from the @SteveSGoddard Twitter account.
Yes, I am a raving lunatic.
Ew, that’s gross. I’d say calling what Steven Goddard does “technical skepticism” is as bad an insult as there is. I don’t know what I’m classified as, but I do know I don’t like the idea of promoting grossly misleading results created entirely from deceptive analyses.
I mean, this is a guy who will shamelessly claim a “blip” in ocean temperatures was fraudulently removed by comparing land+ocean temperature records to land-only temperature records. Apparently he believes we know there’s fraud going on because a “blip” in ocean temperatures was removed from a land-only record… when the land+ocean record still shows it.
By the way tonyhellerexposed, I appreciate that you corrected my mistake, but I think you are a disgusting person for pretending to be Steven Goddard. I’ve seen a number of people claim the sort of thing you’re doing is illegal, but I don’t know if that’s true. What I do know is it is disgusting, and I’d have no problem with people banning you for it.
In fact, I kind of hope they do.
So because you are slow at picking up obvious satire on a website and on a Twitter account that comes right and says “This is a parody” I should be banned?
Makes perfect sense.
No, you should be banned because you do things like come here and claim to be Steven Goddard. And you have a website whose tagline is:
And a description which says:
And at least one entire page devoted to you referring to yourself as Goddard. All of these are explicit identifications as someone else, done in an attempt to make that person look bad. The fact you tack “This is a parody” on the description of your Twitter account” in no justifies what you are doing.
But given as you’re an obvious and confessed troll, I don’t intend to engage with you any further.
==> “Oh, sorry. For a minute I failed to realize that isn’t Steven Goddard.”
Seriously? You seriously thought he was Steven Goddard?
Really?
What tipped you off? The part where he says that he’s blowing the whistle on his own sociopathy?
Too funny.
That’s really cheap, joshie. Even for you.
parody and satire.
hmm I dont think there is blanket protection for satire or parody. the test is would a reasonable person believe it is true.
Also, the point of satire and parody, as courts have pointed out, is that some people dont get that it is satire.
even calling something a parody is not enough to protect you,
although this was really funny
http://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/who-is-tony-heller/comment-page-1/#comment-68
I’ve disagreed with heller from his early days at WUWT.
there is something creepy stalkerish about your blog.
Sure Joshua. One could mock me for not realizing the things on that website aren’t from Steven Goddard. Or one could just realize there is the possibility I didn’t read his website before responding to him as I wasn’t responding to anything being said on the website.
Then again, I understand you would never approve of such charitable interpretations. You completely reject the idea someone might think something other than what you believe they think. You say we should all jump to conclusions based upon tribalistic instincts because that’s the right thing to do. Any opportunity to criticize people we don’t agree with ought to be immediately pounced upon and never backed away from.
No wait. You incessantly talk about how people should do the opposite of that,* I guess that only applies when you want it to.
*Often when they already are but you, for whatever reason, think they aren’t.
Joshie is just a clown, Brandon.
Now let’s see if Judith deletes this mild rebuke to the habitual troll, while allowing the heller impersonator to use her blog for his underhanded purposes.
May I offer a welcome to the newest clown.
As for Tony Heller / Steve Goddard’s style, perhaps it is chosen as a result of the subject matter.
Excellent post.
What do you expect when you say that overwhelming majority is wrong and you are right? You try to rationalize the disagreement by speculating that they are suffering under group think (etc) and you say certain high profile individuals lack integrity because you say they are “advocates.” You have gone beyond the science with your accusations about individuals and your attempt to psychoanalyze the others in the group. I really don’t know why you expect these people to embrace you or your ideas when you engage in such behavior.
Joseph, you’re just making stuff up
Wibble…
Any objective observer looking at all the
facts available to Judith would have come to the same conclusion. Time will vindicate her.
It is refreshing to have your voice in the mix, Judith. Don’t sweat the loss to your career trajectory— it would be far more tragic to lose yourself through silence to a deceit!
I could never figure out why a tenured academic with the freedom, ability, and access to funding to do real science would ever want a “promotion.”
If the stolen emails were so important, why is it that no-one has bothered to look into the third release?
I get the impression the people who were given the password either weren’t very interested in examining the full release or didn’t find anything they felt was interesting. There’s no way to tell which might be true given only a handful of people were given the password. Given the sheer number of e-mails involved (200,000?), there may well be plenty of insightful things to be found that haven’t been seen yet.
I know I would love to look into the e-mails, but I wasn’t given the password. I don’t even know who all was given the password. I suspect there are a number of people in the same position.
I don’t think citing a small number of people failing to discover something is a wise way to prove it doesn’t exist.
ya its a huge pile.
building a concordance of it almost maxed out the memory
2 many, it crashed my PC. gave up
Not only was I left out of the password party, the people who were invited were all boring about it. I’m not sure if that balanced out or makes things worse.
I’m curious just how many of the mails have actually been read. From everything I’ve heard, it’s not a large portion of them.
Nicky used to be a respected academic. Now he spends his time on various skeptic climate blogs playing a scheister lawyer for the Team.
I suppose I could post out every new mail in the collection from mann.
but that might spoil the fun…..
Mann? I doubt there is anything at all in the emails that would indicate he is anything other than a real peach of a guy. Probably most of the emails deal with trying to find economy travel and lodging in order to have more funds available for critical research into natural variability.
Why don’t you give nicky a little sample, Steven? He seems to be worried.
Don,
Didnt mann supply all his mails to the Penn state investigation?
.
I don’t know if mikey supplied all his emails to the Penn State investigation. But if he claimed he did and you got some he didn’t, it would be very devilish of you to produce them.
Don
I dont know why people would want to poke a hornets nest.
“If the stolen emails were so important, why is it that no-one has bothered to look into the third release?”
Holy God what a stupid comment.
I know. Isn’t it?
There may also be many emails that might show a different story about climate science that dies not completely support the “bad boy tribal cabal” aren’t exactly as described.
I am sure that is what they all are. You read them and let us know.
My guess is the majority of them are as exciting as: get milk on your way home, and don’t forget Johnny has a ball game tonight.
It is an important point how little was obtained from so many thousands of emails. A few people arguing both sides about a line on a graph, some concerned with recent large numbers of FOIA data demands, and genuine discussion on what they thought about some papers and people. If there really was a broad web of conspiracy throughout climate science, they didn’t find it in those emails.
Considering how very little dirty laundry was actually found, it did make a great “look squirrel” moment. The preposterous notions of conspiracy and comparisons of these scientists to the worst humans beings from the history books would actually be pathetic- if they weren’t so outright sickening.
I recall when I first started reading about global warming. This was a few years ago. I found myself reading about the hockey stick graph and the questions surrounding it. I suppose the hockey stick revved me up emotionally but that has since faded to where I now feel sorry for Mann. We are all capable of mistakes. It was Mosher I think said words to the effect of, Today it’s not about Mann, there are better things to do. Many movements will capitalize on others (say influential people’s) misfortunes. We could argue if that’s right and what if the shoe was on the other foot? So I hope the skeptics realize that this dog might not hunt anymore.
This is a dialogue I feel sometimes plays out when people talk about a Climategate:
The reason Climategate is still important is so many people’s responses to Climategate have been utterly absurd. I suspect an e-mail could contain a confession to murder and one side would dismiss it since we don’t have a body.
The other side, of course, would say it proves global warming is a hoax.
Little jimmy and gatesy spinning around and around.
Everybody knows that the Climategate revelations and The Pause…wait for it…are killing the cause.
Remember the leaker called themselves ‘foia’ indicating their main issue was the CRU temperature data where they thought something was being hidden. The natural follow-on was the BEST study that basically exonerated the CRU dataset, and that demolished one of the main legs of Climategate, so now it is only about tree-ring data from 1999, and some highly esoteric discussions on how to handle correlations between tree rings and temperature and whether or not the MWP was actually global, which doesn’t get at the recent more obvious CO2 effects at all.
“Remember the leaker called themselves ‘foia’ indicating their main issue was the CRU temperature data where they thought something was being hidden. ”
WRONG.
the FOIA in question were about ar4 chapter 6. david Holland
the other FOIA were for confidentiality agreements.
The mails were not about temperature series. The biggest issues were paleo, paleo, paleo. and paleo.
Now some dummy will talk about harry readme.txt.
no one would be talking about this
if not for the hiatus
while we prattle
nature is having the last word
Willful blindness is tragic, but when you parade it around and proclaim that what is plain to see for the rest of us never happened, it crosses over to comedy, comedy gold. Keep it up.
Steven Mosher, how can you be so sure? Both the FOIA attack and the email theft were against CRU. Their main work was the temperature series. Discussions on AR3 between Jones and Mann were an issue unrelated to the FOIA requests from CRU. You should know that, of all people. Or did they call themselves foia to just besmirch the now well known CA FOIA attack on CRU? I don’t know. Help us out here. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but this is a valid way of putting two and two together.
Jim D
1) Just as Mosher says, Climategate was clearly on about temperature
2) You say “the FOIA attack and the email theft … against CRU”. Are you in possession of some inside information that nobody else has? As I understand, it’s still not clear whether it was a hack or a leak or whatever…
oops… “not”, not “on”
Jim D only cares about “truth” as defined by Marxists. Something is true if you need it to be true to achieve your ends. So it is unsurprising that Jim D has a monopoly on “truth.”
“Steven Mosher, how can you be so sure? Both the FOIA attack and the email theft were against CRU. Their main work was the temperature series.
1. wrong there main work is not the temperature series.
for example, they didnt have any money to do hadcrut4 and in one mail
Jones suggested that all the concern around it could maybe get them a graduate student to help. in fact, the main reason we did the FOIA ( me and mac ) was to actually demonstrate how little work they did.
so WRONG.
“Discussions on AR3 between Jones and Mann were an issue unrelated to the FOIA requests from CRU. You should know that, of all people. Or did they call themselves foia to just besmirch the now well known CA FOIA attack on CRU? I don’t know. Help us out here. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but this is a valid way of putting two and two together.”
Wrong again, it is AR4 chapter 6 and the FOIA requested mails between Briffa and Wahl and Amman. Jones didnt have a current address on Wahl and so asked Mann to forward the request to delete mails.
I had not seen a focus on Wahl when Climategate was mentioned, but I guess it makes sense that the worst emails are always those that were never seen. You can make all kinds of things up about them, and not be inconvenienced by their presence and context.
Jim D, you’ve been posting pretty much the same line of argumentation since you appeared in the comments section of this blog. You’ve been polite and many of the points you make are valid.
But it’s clear you are not familiar with the Climategate emails and that you don’t know the history that led up to their release. You should read more on this subject before embarrassing yourself.
Most of the good stuff came out in the first two, I guess.
Which you continue to ignore and deny.
At least you had the good sense to stay out of it.
Dr. Curry, I’d be very interested in your take on Tony Heller’s apparently well-documented claim that NCDC/NOAA have been manipulating past and current global temperature data to cool the past and warm the present. If what he claims is true it is scandalous and should be exposed by the mainstream media.
Without agreeing with Tony Heller (aka blogger Stephen Goddard), please see essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. Uses some, but only some, of his attributions. He is right, sometimes for wrong reasons. Mny examples from many sources.
With this article we have both persistence and change, along with optimism. The first two of these the yin & yang, opposing yet complimenting. We may want only the yin or the yang but would that really be optimal? I think we should be optimistic rather than resigned to circumstances. I think this one of your best articles. Thank you.
Fascinating to revisit and recall the events and people
stemming the tide of, er, climate ‘change ‘ panic fear and
guilt after Climategate.
Mike Hulme posed reasons after Climategate that developed.
Trend skepticism, disbelieving of the declared evidence that
a change in climate was occurring. Make that ‘unprecedented’
change occurring, different from the MWP or LIA and other
historical evidence on the record.Of course climate changes.
Oddly, it is many on the non skeptical side that failed to note
climate change, an inconvenient temperature hiatus post the
1998 temperature spike. That’s the change that dare not
speak it’s name alright.Model predictions too, just didn’t
measure up.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
Then there’s impact skepticism, lots of club of Rome doomsday
stuff with costly solutions, but, well, somehow the seas refuse to
rise catastrophically, dams keep filling, snow keeps falling
seasonally and life goes on, heck, plants even thrive from that
increase in CO2..
Hey Jude great post.
I’ve been coming here on and off since your early days and your work is very much appreciated.
As to how history will judge,who can tell? But more importantly you have left your mark by driving in a nail which no one can withdraw.
Best wishes
Stuart
Judy, I have question about this sentence:
“Climategate illuminated a serious lack of leadership from the scientific and environmental communities.”
I understand the role of the scientific community in climategate, but first, who are referring to when you write “environmental” community, second, what was this community’s role in climategate, and lastly, what actions would constitute leadership from the environmental community?
Judith …. have NOW become mainstream……
A good overview of your continuing story of courage, determination and good humored tolerance of some pretty petty behaviour from some of your warmist colleagues. I appreciate your blog and most of your denizens.
A small number of skepo/conservative types disapprove of the pilfering of the emails. I happen to be one of that number, but I don’t want to restart that argument.
Climategate has been an opportunity for some to claim a Damascus Road moment. It won’t wash. There was never a reason to believe that rising temps over recent decades and a dribble of sea level rise over recent centuries were anything more than what has gone on right through the Holocene, in between temp and sea level drops. Likewise, the Pause is insignificant, as is any warming or cooling after. What’s new in any of that? (If you really know, tell me…But you don’t really know, do you?)
We do not need better communication. We need any old quality of communication – but of stuff which people actually know. And plain English without the flourishes and dodges of professional “communicators” will do when you actually know something. It would be nice, for example, to know lots more about the deep hydrosphere, and about what’s underneath all that. Since the Planet is getting so much attention these days, we may as well take a peek under its skirts. Silly to die wondering.
But till you know something, why and what are you communicating?
moso, reluctant as I am to disagree with you except over cricket, I wasn’t aware that “pilfering” of the e-mails had been demonstrated. I thought that their release by a concerned insider was regarded as more plausible. Perhaps I missed something.
Oh well, a pilferous release then. Or a quite legal bent arm release which can’t be helped, as they say in Sri Lankan circles.
> I thought that their release by a concerned insider was regarded as more plausible. Perhaps I missed something.
Indeed you did, Faustino:
http://www.cfact.org/2013/03/14/16479/
It also shows evidence of pilfering.
Priors say 80% of the time it’s an insider.
Ask Sony.
At first they thought the north korean did it
Now the evidence points inside
> Now the evidence points inside
“Inside” just got redefined as including “outside the Anglo-American sphere”. Another interesting bit:
http://www.cfact.org/2013/03/14/16479
And even if our Miracle Worker was an insider, it would be hard to prove that the disclosure was made to the “right prescribed person,” so the whistleblowing law would not even apply.
A rock and a hard place.
Can’t say I”ve had much interest in the ‘who’ question, but i did look at the link.
A real ‘but the poor!’ nutter.
Some seriously silly stuff purporting to be about economics in there.
Judy,
Nice post. I think where you lament your career advancement has been halted as a little pessimistic, although I don’t doubt you it is true. Hold your head high – your position as a tenured academic allows you to question the science without losing your job. Yes, the baubles of an academic career maybe withheld, but you won’t lose your house nor your ability to state your case. Recognize that now the issue goes beyond the specifics of Climategate and is becoming an example of speaking truth to power. Inasmuch that our Fourth Estate has long ago failed at this task, you will find an increasingly larger and more diverse audience watching your progress, and perhaps their appreciation will be worth more than a cushy Dean’s job and a new Volvo every second year.
Yes, Romney lost.
Please name the people who have blocked your career advancement.
JCH, you might recall Judith’s surprise when she found that her long-term position at Georgia Tech had been advertised as vacant.
Difficult as it has been to admit, we’ve been forced to witness in agonizing detail as it unfolded, Western academia’s greatest accomplishment of the late 20th Century: The Phony Pollutant of Global Warming Science!
“I’ll let history decide……if history even cares.”
Don’t sell yourself short. It may take a decade
or so but history will chronicle the transformation from science to scare to a more measured and professional approach to understanding the climate challenges we face. There are some who put science ahead of all other considerations. You and the others deserve our appreciation.
+1
Trenberth: Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].
There’s not much thought yet about what makes climate science a field other than funding.
It used to be geophysics and had no special funding, just curious guys working and publishing here and there.
Something caused gravitation into a single field, and it’s not healthy.
I paid little attention to climategate, having decided it was bunk before that. If two errors I knew about went unrefuted from within the field I knew it was something other than a science already.
The rest is then not worth looking at, as you would decide for astrology without being an expert in astrology.
I would love to see a plot of estimated ECS for 2x[CO2] vs publication date
Thanks Judy, important to reflect. It’s been a pleasure to get to know you over the past 20 years and to serve on a couple of of you Ph.D. student’s committees. I started in the climate business well before the ‘global change’ aspect came in and remain committed to what I was doing then as now.
I find it amusing that trendy ideas such as “Arctic amplification” seem to have no acknowledgement that Jerry Namias and Ed Lorenz were studying this as the ‘index cycle’ before they were born and were humble enough not to claim they solved it.
I remain committed to working within the system to try to move it in the right direction of more transparency, accountability, and openness. It’s a slog, but it’s worth it.
Thank you John!
Of COURSE “skeptics” still find “Climategate” to still be significant, despite eight independent investigations finding that the scientists did nothing wrong. That’s the job of a conspiracy theorist. Any evidence that he’s wrong is just evidence that the conspiracy was bigger than he ever imagined.
Why this would surprise any adult is a mystery to me.
It can be significant and unrelated to a conspiracy. We could ask Jones, Briffa and Mann if it was significant? Significant as a turning point?
“investigations.” Surely you jest.
Absolute certainty must feel great. It is wonderful that God selected you as the person who knows everything. Congratulations Mark!
Yes Steve, if it was a whitewash, then that would require all of the within each of the bodies that investigated the matter to conspire together to find no wrongdoing despite the facts.
I think Joseph the whole point was that the “investigations” did not investigate the “science” at all (so any intimation that they signed off on the science would be incorrect). Also, it never looks good when the “independent” investigators appear to have an interest in the outcome of the investigation. BishopHill had a number of interesting looks at these “independent” investigations.
These proceedings were exhaustively reviewed over at Climate Audit on a detailed basis. They can be read independently. They studiously avoided confronting any of the issues, each one passing on the onus to some other body. In some cases we have behind-the-scenes emails via FOIA-type actions of the “investigators” bragging about their cleverness in not having to delve into things that would prove embarrassing. Almost none of the skeptical people who advanced the original claims that started the whole affair were even interviewed. To call this “phoning it in” is an insult to the diligent folk who repeated dial radio stations in hopes of winning of concert tickets.
Since it is obvious from the climategate letters themselves that the scientists did do something wrong, investigations will only have the ability to convince me that the investigators have lost their moral bearings. I don’t see why you think I should accept the investigators as my teachers. I don’t even understand what you think they were supposed to investigate: I don’t suspect the scientists of doing anything beyond what they said they did.
hmmm.
“…lost their moral bearings…”
Kind of like sociopoaths, huh Mike?
That’s a real stretch, joshie. You are really struggling, this evening.
I don’t think so, Joshua, because I don’t think there really were “eight investigations of climategate”. Or that the investigations found that “the scientists had done nothing wrong”. They investigated various specific issues like academic malfeasance and such, generally things that I never suspected them of doing. (Some of them seem to have investigated nothing at all.)
I read some climategate letters, discovered that the scientists were doing things I disapproved of. I don’t see the point of investigating them.
All the investigations did is convince me that the investigators don’t disapprove of those things as much as I do.
It’s a reference to another thread on another site – but seems to me that someone who has lost their moral bearing is a sociopath. My guess is that mike was being a touch dramaqueenish.
Why such a mild rebuke, Don? Usually your responses are filled with insults. Holiday spirit? Don’t you know I’m a promoter of the war against Christmas?
Joshua, I hope my second comment clarifies my first, which overstated my position a little.
Joshua, people can lack integrity, lie and cheat, etc. without being true “sociopaths” — most people who prove unethical in some way(s) are probably well aware of “right and wrong” and so not sociopaths, by definition.
From what I’ve read of “Climategate” emails and some of the “investigations” (sic) I see a bunch of flawed people, some with severely compromised characters, but not sociopaths. I see some weak consciences and flaccid minds, but not sociopaths. I see some people who can’t be bothered doing the right thing (e.g., honest thorough investigations) because there could be inconvenient results. Certainly the terms of reference for most of the inquiries were so constrained (and then not properly followed) that virtually none of the inquiries is worth a warm pail of spit, as the saying goes. Not from sociopathology or conspiracy (in my view) but from human frailties magnified by the perceived pressures of groupthink, tribalism, etc. Some of your favorite topics!
You need to upgrade your schtick, joshie. Your material is very stale and irrelevant.
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ F.A. Hayek
I have quoted quite a few of these people – fanatics telling big lies in support of insane social and economic agendas. They need to either their up and endorse this dangerous nonsense or distance themselves from it. But I suppose a sociopath wouldn’t necessarily see it that way.
“It’s a reference to another thread on another site – but seems to me that someone who has lost their moral bearing is a sociopath. ”
Joshua redefines sociopath because he is dramaqueening.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath
“Researchers, including Howard Kamler, say that the sociopath lacks not “moral” identity but self-identity altogether.”
Its fun to diagnose people from afar
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/is-obama-a-psychopath/
No conspiracy necessary, just individuals who put ‘The Cause’ ahead of the science, usually subconsciously. It’s not really that unusual in science, it’s just that in this case, there are big political implications.
It’s not remotely “subconscious”, one chart explains “academics” a you don’t need to be Einstein to realize it’s much worse in any “green” related field with the word “climate” involved:
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11
Right cwon, because we all know that the left wants there to be global warming that could lead to damaging impacts. I mean who wouldn’t want that??
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Yet – they keep denying that they need catastrophe to support insane social and economic policy? It’s a package – millennialist and socialist.
Rob, I notice that not one of those people said that science related to global warming was wrong. Now you will have to account for all of the scientists who say that AGW has potential for damaging consequences. Why are they saying this?
Catastrophe might be real therefore we need insane social and economic policy?
“evidence that the conspiracy was bigger than he ever imagined.”
Like the big oil companies conspiracy to cast doubt on climate science? Yeah boy. Those vast right wing conspiracies just keep on growing, huh?
No, it is entirely plausible that every single person, scientist or lay, who doubts the steel trap conclusions of climate science is in the pay of the Koch Bros.
Actually TJ, I think that the fossil fuel interests have stopped funding climate scientists directly. I think the they have decided that direct funding was making them look bad in the public’s eyes. I think they have decided to focus on funding right wing organizations that focus on climate change as well as political contributions and lobbying for the purpose of derailing policy that is not in their interests.
I don’t think we should trust anyone that has taken oil money either directly or indirectly. Someone make a list of who is left. It will be easier that way.
> I think the they have decided that direct funding was making them look bad in the public’s eyes.
Let’s not forget that they invest in what makes them look good too:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/873021-33714-suncor-presentation-1210-6.html
Suncor is onto one as we speak:
http://whatyescando.com/
Joseph | December 3, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
I assume that you are talking about the $100,000,000 given by Exxon Mobil to that famous right wing organization … the Stanford University climate department …
You guys really, really need to hire a fact-checker. This raving about right-wing conspiracies is hilarious.
w.
Speaking of fact checking, it’s 225 millions, Willis, and not just Exxon. Over ten years. And let’s not forget:
> The money for climate research is ”only one-tenth of 1 percent of what Exxon Mobil will spend over the same time exploring and developing new sources of oil and gas,” said Pete Altman, the coordinator of a shareholder group pressing to change the company’s environmental practices
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html
That Lindzenian line is older than CG 1.
The relevant statistic is how much govenment spends in total on climate science, versus how much everyone else together else does.
The former is something like 5000 times larger than the latter.
Any wonder there’s a 97% consensus?
This is what the ‘skeptics’ forget on the question of funding;
Doing science can be very expensive.
Just making sh!t up, can be done cheap.
Skeptics do not forget how expensive science is.
That is just some cheap sh!t you made up.
> versus how much everyone else together else does.
Does… where?
The global advertising industry is around 660 billions US:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/237797/total-global-advertising-revenue/
The market research industry in the US alone is in the order of 40 billions:
http://www.statista.com/topics/1293/market-research/
This is more that half the whole budget of the whole federal research budget!
Creating a lifestyle to oversell junk is not cheap.
Willis, funding research into alternative energy sources is not the same as funding the science related to climate.
Willard:
Herewith my original comments, with some clarifications added to keep you on-topic.
The relevant statistic is : how much government spends in total on climate science, versus how much everyone else put together else does – on climate science.
The former is something like 5000 times larger than the latter.
Any wonder there’s a 97% consensus? – 97+% of the funding comes from the same institution – a huge and powerful institution whose vested interest just happens lies in fomenting climate alarm
Muon,
That’s a fine theory.
The confirmation of this ‘vested interest’ might be seen in these ‘huge annd powerful institutions’ rushing to adopt any and all climate-related policies related to addressing AGW.
Michael
That govenments have a vested interest in promoting CAGW is patently obvious – it justifies them raising more taxes for themselves, and allocating themselves more powers over society with via regulations and bureaucracies.
Which well explains why they been using our taxes to beat the CAGW drum for 20+ years now, selectively channeling money to science that toes the political line.
Their success in going ahead with this political expansion, of course depends on enough of the electorate buying the message. Which isn’t happening, despite them outspending the opposition by numerous orders of magnitudes. Very galling to them and others dedicated to political expansionism, I’m sure.
What a relief that this isn’t just some silly begging-the-question rant.
When will why willn’t willard wonder well?
================================
Mark Willis
to my understanding, there is no dispute that CRU data was manipulated in a way that many scientists would not approve of had they been aware of it
the “investigations” only decided that these manipulations did not cross the line for disciplinary action
data still altered in a way that Judith Curry and others were not informed about
causing them to reexamine conclusions
no mystery
you are wrong
it is significant
“I saw somewhere that John Kerry said essentially the same thing (tho I can’t find the link).”
You mean this?
The British university emails were exploited by the opponents very effectively, and a kind of pejorative set in about climate science as a result. I think the climate issue lost 20 or 30 points of support in the public arena.
http://grist.org/politics/john-kerry-on-why-we-need-fossil-fuels-for-now-and-climate-action-for-real/
“Climategate also motivated the formation of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.”
I have always believed that BEST was created and funded because of the impending release of Anthony Watt’s work on his surface stations project. It’s hard to forget Muller’s rush to press release, with data that Watt’s had given him with the expectation of confidentiality.
BEST didn’t (doesn’t) attack tribalism or the withholding of data, which is what climategate was about. BEST is about PR and massaging the temperature records with statistics to ensure that nothing undermines the political consensus.
Muller in a Guardian interview in 2011, with the typical apolitical humility of the progressive: “”We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close,”
Climategate was tangential as BEST. “‘With CRU’s credibility undergoing a severe test, it was all the more important to have a new team jump in, do the analysis fresh and address all of the legitimate issues raised by sceptics,’ says Muller’.
Gotta “address those issues,” before Watts can…..
==> “I have always believed that BEST was created and funded because of the impending release of Anthony Watt’s work on his surface stations project”
Heh.
Conspiracy theorists? What conspiracy theorists?
No one here but us chickens.
““Climategate also motivated the formation of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.”
I have always believed that BEST was created and funded because of the impending release of Anthony Watt’s work on his surface stations project. It’s hard to forget Muller’s rush to press release, with data that Watt’s had given him with the expectation of confidentiality”
#######################################
wrong. you dont even know the timelines. As muller explained to be on my first visit, he was inspired by two things to take up the work.
One was Anthony’s work.
before I made my visit to talk with him anthony had already made his visit to talk to muller and Anthony was supportive of the effort.
Later came a shit storm when before congress Muller explained that one of our papers supported what Anthony had already published.
Much later in July of 2012 Anthony web published another paper.
I asked for the data, he said no.
On climate audit in July of 2012 I complained to Steve Mcintryre that I feared that Anthony would never release the data.
I was told not to worry.
go figure.
Me: “I have always believed that BEST was created and funded because of the impending release of Anthony Watt’s work on his surface stations project.”
Mosher: “As muller explained to be on my first visit, he was inspired by two things to take up the work. One was Anthony’s work.”
Gee, that showed me.
garyM
“Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.”
Anthony in 2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/
You need to read the whole story
Try here for the whole story, GaryM:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/
I just love this title:
Berkeley Earth finally makes peer review – in a never before seen journal
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/berkeley-earth-finally-makes-peer-review/
True Gary. In the whole sordid play of the last fifteen years, Muller’s role is one of the most interesting. Poor guy, every time he wrote an op-ed he made a fool of himself.
Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
Judith Curry is engaging…as always :)
Congratulations, Professor Curry, for having the courage of your conviction to do what “feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.”
You have a good understanding of the impact of your decision on academic career advancement and climbing the
administrative ladder.
I salute your decision!
I’m glad you were open to the “news” contained in the Climategate files. It takes just the right combination of naivete and idealism on the one hand and realism about human nature on the other to react as you did. What I would like to is more insight into the day-to-day work choices that scientists make that are affected by these pressures. Having read Collins on gravitational waves and Hull on taxonomy, who relate these choices without disapproval, and Ghiselin’s Intellectual Compromise: The Bottom Line, which is more critical, it would be interesting to see what goes on in geophysics and climate studies.
Do you know of examples of essentially unrelated work getting attached to the climate-change funding pot, second-rate specialists from other fields migrating into climate science with new and badly understood methods that get accepted because of their conclusions, or unreported choices in parametrization of GCMs to get them to come out “right”? Have you seen uncongenial results buried or obscured by researchers? Are skeptical questions about the methods of “convenient” papers self-censored or otherwise suppressed (we saw some of that in the Climategate emails). These are the kinds of observations of the field that would add substance to your critique of the herd mentality that has developed.
The Climategate legacy is explained in quotes C J Orach posted from leaders of AGW or climate change movement:
http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/musings-from-the-leaders-of-the-climate-change-movement-seeking-to-save-the-earth-from-humanity/comment-page-1/
Judith complained about Betts and Edwards “where they criticize Ball’s post for the Mein Kampf quote and for snide remarks about the IPCC, without actually engaging with the real content of the post. ” Surely the main content of the post, if I get the gist of its lead-in, was that climate science is ‘the big lie’ of the kind that Hitler was talking about. As climate scientists, I don’t think they need to address this more than just quote it to show it for what it is. This is another demonstration of conspiracy ideation on Ball’s part, and some of the skeptical commenters noted that this was what Lewandowsky was talking about, and they need to quiet down with this kind of talk. Ball was allowed to do another post on essentially the same subject (don’t mention Hitler was heeded), but it still was about a conspiracy (e.g. quote “However, money was not the reason for the cabal who orchestrated the entire deception…. “, Club of Rome, etc., ). Watts, sadly, seems to have accepted that one because I thought he had turned a corner on the ‘big lie’ thinking. It’s crazy talk which just fuels the Lewandowsky argument.
==> “without actually engaging with the real content of the post. ”
Wow!
Could it really be true that Judith that post had “content” worth “engaging with?”
Perhaps that is a misreading?
If not, it looks like Judith’s notion of the value of “extended peer review” includes valuing Nazi comparisons.
Well, perhaps with her labeling people as “deniers” and her comparing people to McCarthy, it wouldn’t be all that surprising.
==> “without actually engaging with the real content of the post. ”
Wow!
Could it really be true that Judith that post had “content” worth “engaging with?”
Perhaps that is a misreading?
If not, it looks like Judith’s notion of the value of “extended peer review” includes valuing N*zi* comparisons.
Well, perhaps with her labeling people as “deniers” and her comparing people to McCarthy, it wouldn’t be all that surprising.
* How amusing that Judith thinks that N*azi references = “content” even as the word N*zi flags the Climate Etc. filter?
==> “Watts, sadly, seems to have accepted that one because I thought he had turned a corner on the ‘big lie’ thinking. ”
The “alarmists” are sociopaths argument runs throughout pretty much ever single comment thread at WUWT – not to mention those here. Is that supposed to be considered as coincidental to Watts’ own input?
For Watts (or Judith) to pretend otherwise (hiding behind the excuse that he was too busy to moderate Ball’s post) is hilarious.
Maybe Judith will call a few more people “deniers” even as she complains about the tribalism revealed by Climategate?
Same ol’ same ol.’
OK, here is more of Tim Ball’s conspiracy theory fro his Hitler post, but basically repeated again in his second non-Hitler post.
“The motive emerged from the cabal within the Club of Rome around the themes identified by their founder, scientist Alexander King, in the publication The First Global Revolution. They took the Malthusian argument that the population was outgrowing food resources and said it was outgrowing all resources. The problem overall was bad, but was exacerbated and accelerated by industrialized nations. They were later identified as the nations in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Accord. The objective to achieve the motive was to reduce industrialization by identifying CO2 as causing global warming. It had to be a human caused variable that transcended national boundaries and therefore could only be resolved by a world government, (the conspiracy theory). Two parallel paths required political control, supported by scientific “proof” that CO2 was the demon.”
Maybe interesting to see how many “skeptics” go as far as saying CO2 is a made-up problem with the real aim of population reduction by this small cabal. The WUWT leadership seems to approve of this theory, and indeed Monckton, another proponent of this, along with Ball are frequent posters there. Are there any skeptics who are skeptical of that idea too, or who would even go as far as calling it out as plain crazy?
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
On the one hand they applaud the sentiment and on the other deny the characterisation. A cabal of incipient autocrats telling lies to advance a dangerously insane social and economic agenda is the wrong spin on it entirely.
You keep posting this but forget about Bill Gates who wants to use his vaccines to depopulate according to these Agenda 21 theories. Is that one you also believe, or does it honestly sound a little crazy to you? The Maurice Strong quote, often used, is a plot from a potential book that he was talking about.
You got an insane quote from Bill Gates I can use then Jimmy Dee?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I
There isn’t one. Bill Gates is about toilets, vaccines, micronutrients, energy investments, etc.
Optimally – it is about reducing energy costs for the poorest. These core concerns are laudable and reasonable.
Someone took a vaccines comment out of context – it is about improving wealth, health and education and population pressures decrease naturally. There is not a direct link between vaccines and reduced population – the link is via improved welfare.
Gates seems a little naive on the global warming – but we will let that charitably pass. He is far from any of these other dangerously insane fanatics I quote.
If we were not already aware of what unbelievable nonsense you spout Jimmy Dee – this would certainly confirm it.
Rob Ellison, if you want insane usage of Bill Gates quotes search for Agenda 21 and Bill Gates. There are lots of them, and they take his words out of context just like others do with UNEP’s Agenda 21 all the time. Taking words out of context is a conspiracy theorist’s bread and butter.
Jim D.: There are lots of them, and they take his words out of context just like others do with UNEP’s Agenda 21 all the time.
Could you show how the context changes the meaning in this instance?
Matthew Marler, the best way to see the disconnect is to look at Agenda 21 here, where in 1992 they set out some of the problems in the developing world to be aware of in the 21st century, a fairly comprehensive list and some guidance. This probably was near the beginning of the idea of global sustainability that only really took off after that.
http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=52
Then go to the Web and search for Agenda 21 and depopulation and/or world government.
There is – objectively and from their own words – a cabal of demented progressives with an insane social and economic agenda. I don’t think Bill Gates is part – but haven’t exonerated Jimmy Dee yet.
As I said they both applaud and deny it. No conspiracy – it is all just right wing fantasy.
Rob,
Even when it comes from their own words, they will refuse to acknowledge it.
Jim D: Then go to the Web and search for Agenda 21 and depopulation and/or world government.
Sure, I can read lots of stuff in lots of locations. To understand your meaning, I would like to read your selection of illustrative examples.
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
Maurice Strong
Odd you mention books – I was thinking of this one.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Collapse-Western-Civilization-Future/dp/023116954X
There are a few familiar names in the reviews and a package price for this and Naomi Klein’s new book – This changes everything: capitalism vs. climate.
And this isn’t a cabal of climate ninnies with an insane social and economic agenda laughably fixated on world domination?
Jimmy D, is part of a vast conspiracy to attribute everything to conspiracy ideation.
Tim Ball, by accusing climate scientists of ‘the big lie’ also ended up revealing that his propaganda playbook in accusing opponents of that kind of thing was Mein Kampf, and Watts was not happy with that coming out, which brings to mind this old classic.
JimD, Seems to me there isn’t much difference between a big lie and a big truth. It might be offensive, but the third reich is a pretty fair example of “group think”, L word is a pretty fair example of politics corrupting science and since all we have to go on is history, it would be pretty hard not to find painful analogies. Of course they would never apply to any of the good folks, no one has ever screwed things up by trying to make things too perfect :)
Rob and Captain
I don’t recall a time when lies and deception have been so prevalent. When caught on tape they deny, when caught in print they deny. The tactic of lie, and lie about the lie, until it is believed, dominates the progressive left.
Cheers,
Richard
That’s was some funny stuff. No less so than Mann dancing around and chopping trees down. It general, WUWT should carry the disclaimer:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9E9jgApdDT8/Uin1yqsVl-I/AAAAAAAADKw/72MGEjmG8gU/s1600/Disclaimer+ppt.png
Appropriate you should post that disclaimer under your own name. Truth in advertising.
The references in the video still hold up even a couple of years later, more so in some cases.
Judith, this post is why you are and will always remain an inspiring teacher to latecomers like me. Highest regards to your own journey. Rud.
Mr. Istvan
this early am I was trying compose my thoughts
you did it for me
except better
add me
” I’ve exchanged academic advancement that now seems to be of dubious advantage to me for a much more interesting and influential existence that that feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.” And many are very grateful that you have done so. And while it was not your intention, it has given you a much bigger, and very valuable, voice in the mainstream climate debate. Thanks again, Judith.
An aside, in reading Judith’s “Open Letter” published on Revkin’s DotEarth (November 27, 2009), I tried to follow the link (see below) to a presentation of hers on integrity of climate science, and I get a ‘404’ error message… “Error 404 – Page Not Found.” We are all well aware of the phenomenon of dead or altered links as websites get revised etc., but in this case I found it “interesting” because it is a link to Gleick’s Pacific Institute site, and I cannot find the presentation or indeed any mention of Judith Curry in searches of that site. She seems to be a “non-person” there….
So did Gleick or a colleague of his have Judith’s presentation on integrity of climate research, formerly hosted at the PacInst site, axed from the site? Interesting that they would host the content as of Nov. 2009, and then (someone) decided to remove said content on integrity in climate science.
[Judith Curry]:
The link to that PDF appears to have been changed sometime in 2012 or early 2013. Archive.org did grab the PDF though – May 1, 2012 (and perhaps later):
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501000000*/http://www2.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/AGU_IntegrityofScience_Curry.pdf
I find dropping ‘dead’ links into archive.org’s wayback machine often recovers the errant page.
thanks, that’s helpful
presentation ends with a quotation from Chris Mooney!! Oh, Judith has come a long way (although the quotation is uncontroversial)
The detour that Judith Curry has taken since the email leak may have its place in the political discourse surrounding this issue. It is not obvious if anything notable turned up on the scientific front besides the Stadium wave hypothesis.
RB, I would beg to differ, although you might quibble about your qualifier ‘obvious’.
In climate science, The ‘pause’ has falsified climate models by the climatologists own prior definitions. See essay An Awkward Pause in Blowing Smoke, foreward from JC herself. Many of the predicted ‘climate catastrophes’ aren’t happening. Lots of essays from Polar Bears to Northwest Passage to Extreme Extremes. The Stadium Wave hypothesis is one of several more specific reinstatements of cyclical natural variation, which Mann’s hockey stick sought to expunge.
In AGW remediation (what the politics is about), the costly consequences of renewable intermittency become ever clearer. See Planning Engineer’s recent guest posts here. The physical and economic fallacies behind other ‘mitigation’ proposals also become clearer. See essays Hydrogen Hype and Clean Coal (the latter guest posted by Judith here previously after her usual vigorous editorial scrub) for concrete examples. I consider those to be science based.
Ms. Curry:
In the end, you went for “truth for it’s own sake”. How could you ever second-guess that decision?
CH
Judith has been most notable is her willingness to stand up for scientific truth but what is even more remarkable is the apparent absense of such behaviour among the majority (97%?) of main stream climate scientists.
Judith
Congratulations and my compliments on your courage to speak out for truth, civility and to uphold the scientific method and scientific integrity as so eloquently summarized by Richard Feynman.
Judith, in your otherwise excellent head post, you fell into the exaggeration trap when you said:
I have to protest, because you are tarring me with a broad brush aimed at others. I spoke out on that very thread against Tim Ball’s post, and against such accusations involving people’s motives. I called such attacks as Tim made “vile and despicable” … can’t be more clear than that.
I realize it was just a throwaway line regarding the comments, but of such accusations are enmity made … you’ve accused the entire WUWT community of doing something wrong, which is not a productive thing to do.
All the best of life to you, and thanks as always for your excellent blog,
w.
Anthony should elevate your comment to a post.
when Ball indicts all of climate science and the IPCC where does it stop?
are nic lewis and judith part of the big lie?
mcintryre and mckittrcik, both cited by Ipcc
spenser? christy?
hell the IPCC even cites Watt’s paper
what about all the IPCC reviewers? monkton.. is he part of the big lie.
WUWT crowd has gone downhill a bit lately. The post quality too.
There are still very good posts, and very good commenters, but there is a lot of noise.
I would very much like you to read my latest works.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
Thank you.
Tim
Historical Climatologist
PS My website is http://www.drtimball.com
My documentary
hjes_0
My distrust of climate science as practiced by the IPCC began long before Climategate. Initially I found it hard to believe that a gas occupying less than one percent of the atmosphere could have such a profound effect, let alone could be a threat to our future existence, so being a pioneer mathematical modeller, although in the weapons field, I thought it was my duty to investigate further.
However, as a retired scientist I did not have the resources to build a model, so I just took a hard look at the average annual temperature data: I found that there was no other viable explanation than CO2 had caused the 1910 to 1940 temperature rise, but Arrhenius’ 19th century explanation was not good enough. This was reinforced by the specific heat of the various atmospheric gases. The 1940 data stood out as a singularity. Why did the temperature fall so precipitously after 1940? The only explanation seemed to be in the CO2 molecule – the vibration modes, which of course depend on neutrons. Carbon happens to be rich in neutrons which are heavy and absorb a lot of IR enegy, also could lose a lot of energy at tropospheric temperatures.This seemed the reason for the fall after 1940.
No one knew how long it takes for the oceans to start to to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere, but 30 years seems reasonable and that was what the data told me.
I remain surprised and disappointed that the combination of Climategate and the Pause haven’t derailed the climate alarmist train.
I am not sure what you expect. There are still plenty of communists around, even after the Soviet, Nazi, Red Chinese, Khmer Rouge, Castro’s Cuba, etc complete failure in the 20th century. Facts don’t matter to these people, will to power matters.
“David in Cal | December 2, 2014 at 2:00 am | Reply
I remain surprised and disappointed that the combination of Climategate and the Pause haven’t derailed the climate alarmist train.”
—–
Should not be surprised. With 2014 set likely to become the warmest year on instrument record, reality will be hard to derail.
Warmest year? So C&W under the bus now?
“reality will be hard to derail”
True. People need to get out of the mindset of made up squiggly line drawings as authorities.
Andrew
R. Gates, maybe 2014 will turn out to be the warmest year on record, based on one of several temperature measures. That’s no big deal, because:
1. 2014 will not be the warmest year based on other standard measures.
2. A war 2014 wouldn’t change the fact that we remain in a lengthy Hiatus that’s quite different from the alarmist models.
3. A warm 2014 doesn’t prove that future warming will be catastrophic. 4. A warm 2014 doesn’t show what portion of the warming has been anthropogenic.
“steven | December 2, 2014 at 9:33 am |
Warmest year? So C&W under the bus now?”
____
Let’s see, either the pseudoscience crowds accepts C&W, and there was no “hiatus”, or they deny C&W, and this is the warmest year on record. Your choice, pseudoscientists. That’s the advantage of pseudoscience!
“David in Cal | December 2, 2014 at 1:31 pm | :
R. Gates, maybe 2014 will turn out to be the warmest year on record, based on one of several temperature measures. That’s no big deal, because:
1. 2014 will not be the warmest year based on other standard measures. (These are “secret” standards the only the pseudoscience crowd understands or agrees with?)
2. A warm 2014 wouldn’t change the fact that we remain in a lengthy Hiatus that’s quite different from the alarmist models. (The models are always wrong, but their failure to track natural variability in a chaotic system does not mean the climate system is not gaining energy. Have you been following anything here? Regarding the “hiatus”, from the full climate system perspective, the hiatus really doesn’t exist. It’s a false-flag argument regarding the basis validity of AGW theory, which is about energy accumulation.)
3. A warm 2014 doesn’t prove that future warming will be catastrophic. (I agree, nor does is prove that it won’t be, but still keeps the possibility open that it could be.)
4. A warm 2014 doesn’t show what portion of the warming has been anthropogenic. (No, it takes some pretty powerful supercomputers to indicate that with any degree of confidence. Likely we’re at least 95% sure that 2014 will be at or near record warmth primarily as a the result of anthropogenic forcing.)
Gates, it doesn’t matter to me if you throw them under the bus. I knew they were going there eventually. It just happened a little quicker than I had expected :).
2010 started hot, and got cold.
2014 started cold, and has been getting warmer.
With SOI heading south yet again, C&W could set a record/near record if November and December are warm enough.
UAH November does not have much of a North American cold wave. Perhaps offset by positive ONI.
JCH, C&W don’t think it’s likely and they know more about their system than I do so I bow to their superior knowledge on the topic. I don’t care which data set people prefer but if one is superior, as the argument was going, it should be superior regardless of the results it shows. I also don’t care if it is the warmest year or not. I’m looking 10-20 years down the road and consider the year to year and month to month comparisons sort of a waste of time.
R. Gates — How do we know that CO2 is warming the planet? Because the models tell us so. Once we admit that the models aren’t reliable, then all we have is our observations. We know is that over the last 200 years there have been multi-decade periods of cooling and rapid warming, but with the average producing a slow rate of warming..
But, we have no basis for predicting future warming. We surely have no basis for predicting future catastrophic warming. Nor do we have a basis to predict that any contemplated scheme to reduce CO2 emissions will save us from catastrophe.
It is derailing it. Good things take time.
“R. Gates — How do we know that CO2 is warming the planet? Because the models tell us so.”
_____
Nope. You need to understand the difference between models, which include basic physics, and the basic physics itself. Fundamental science tells us that adding CO2 will “warm the planet”. Actually, what the basic science tells us is that the energy balance of the climate system will be forced toward “accumulate” as CO2 levels increase. One way that increased energy in the system shows up is through tropospheric sensible heat.
R. Gates: Actually, what the basic science tells us is that the energy balance of the climate system will be forced toward “accumulate” as CO2 levels increase.
Actually, only a restriction of attention to a subset of the science “tells us” that. Of the net 161 W/m^2 of radiant energy incident at the Earth surface, 17 is carrieid from the surface to the upper troposphere by dry thermals, 80 by evapotranspiration, and 63 by upward radiation (these figures are from the Trenberth et al flow diagram, discussed by Randall, Atmosphere, Clouds and Climate, p 24 and in chapter 3.) (The figures are not as accurately known as you might infer from the number of apparently significant figures printed.) Despite the fact that water vapor pressure increases supralinearly with temperature, and that fact that most downwelling LWIR incident on a water surface is absorbed in a narrow depts at the surface, the 80 W/m^2 that is carried from the surface by evapotranspiration is assumed to remain the same as CO2 increases and the Earth surface temperature increases. Those are totally baseless and nonsensical assumptions.
One of the perversions of language in this discussion and debate is the use of phrases such as “the science” and “the basic science” to exclude the largest segment of the system transferring energy from the surface to the upper troposphere.
“One of the perversions of language in this discussion and debate is the use of phrases such as “the science” and “the basic science” to exclude the largest segment of the system transferring energy from the surface to the upper troposphere.”
______
No models or climate scientists “exclude” any part of the system. Adding GH gases to an atmosphere will “force” the system to accumulate more energy until a new equilibrium is reached. The time it takes to reach that new equilibrium depends on the nature of the system and the net total thermal inertia of the system– the cryosphere for example, including of course the vast ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will takes decades to respond and as they are part of the equilibrium response, no such new equilibrium will be reached until the ice sheets are done responding. As such, the response of the ice sheets today is from CO2 added in prior decades, and even if we froze CO2 at 400ppm, the ice sheets would keep retreating for many more decades.. Oops, didn’t think of that did you pseudoscientists?
R. Gates: Adding GH gases to an atmosphere will “force” the system to accumulate more energy until a new equilibrium is reached.
Actually, the science precludes any equilibrium, so the calculations based on an equilibrium are untrustworthy until they have been proven to be worthy of trust. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere as it is now will lead to an accumulation of energy in the troposphere, during the times of day when that energy is accumulating, and lead to an increase in the rate of cooling during the times of day when the troposphere displays net radiative cooling. When there is an increase in the downwelling LWIR, there is an increase in the evaporation rate from the non-dry surface, and the consequences of that increased evaporation rate have not been fully worked out. The GCMs do not agree on whether there will be a net increase in rainfall or a net decrease, but the assumptions are that relative humidity will not be affected, that absolute humidity will not be affected, or that the Clausius-Clapayron equilibrium model will always be an accurate approximation to the true moist lapse rate. Whether cloud cover will increase or decrease is not known.
For an example, consider Held and Soden, 2006, Journal of Climate, vol 19, p 5686:As in many discussions of water vapor and global
warming, our starting point is the Clausius–Clapeyron. And from the abstract: A surprising finding is that a robust decrease in extratropical sensible heat transport is found only in the equilibrium climate response, as estimated in slab ocean responses to the doubling of CO2, and not in
transient climate change scenarios.
So, …, “the science” taken all together does not imply that CO2 added now, to this system, will force an increase in the mean system temperature.
You also wrote this: You need to understand the difference between models, which include basic physics, and the basic physics itself. Fundamental science tells us that adding CO2 will “warm the planet”.
But then you redirected the discussion toward the models.
and you wrote this:One way that increased energy in the system shows up is through tropospheric sensible heat. That’s where it shows up first, if it shows up at all, because that is where the CO2 is accumulating. Since the effect on the surface is through the increase in downwelling LWIR, a likely effect is an increase in the water evaporation rate with no increase in surface temperature on the 90% or so of the Earth surface that is non-dry.
Taken all together, “the science” suggests that calculations from radiative balance models over estimate future surface warming from an increase in atmospheric CO2.
River Kwai
Building Bridges and Destroying Them
Recognizing the dying Shears, Nicholson exclaims, “What have I done?” Warden fires his mortar, mortally wounding Nicholson. The dazed colonel stumbles towards the detonator and collapses on the plunger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai
The bridge on the river Kwai ending
http://tinyurl.com/l9ajgsv
Until we have a point of recognition acknowledging
“What have I done? ”
We are nowhere near a solution
Steven Mosher | December 2, 2014 at 2:26 am |
As the person who wrote the first FOI request to CRU, I have to strongly disagree. My request was indeed about the CRU temperature data, in response to which Phil Jones lied through his teeth, and co-opted the FOI person at the University to deny my request.
My account of the whole thing is here. Note that I didn’t write the Foreword or insert the graphic, my account starts below that.
It’s a sad tale, and has nothing to do with paleo.
And yes, there is plenty of mention in the emails of my request for the CRU temperature data, as well as a number of other FOI requests. Inter alia, the emails made it plain that the un-indicted co-conspirators were destroying evidence sought by the FOI requests, and were conspiring to deny FOI requests to anyone who posted at ClimateAudit … so Steven, the idea that it was “paleo, paleo, paleo, and paleo” simply isn’t true. They covered a host of items, including descriptions of how they were packing the peer-review panels, and a host of other sins of omission and commission. Yes, “paleo” is the subject of a number of emails. But as an overall description, “paleo” doesn’t begin to cover it.
Regards,
w.
yes willis you got the ball rolling as I noted in the book.
you also got responses.
BUT the wrong doing uncovered was actually related to Hollands request.
And the next big issue was Ar4 chapter 6.
Skeptics who argued that climategate was about the temperature series
are the BIGGEST reason why they got away with it.
ask mcintrye
Steven Mosher: Skeptics who argued that climategate was about the temperature series
are the BIGGEST reason why they got away with it.
Who got away with what?
Phil Jones “got away with it” because the police investigation came after the period prescribed in the statute of limitations had expired.
Matthew.
Some investigations focused on the temperature series. They even did their own temperature series to prove their case. That diversion allowed them to ignore
Mcintyre issues
Ask him
Steven Mosher: That diversion allowed them to ignore
Mcintyre issues
So you decline to say who got away with it or what they got away with. McIntyre is not responsible for explaining what you meant.
“So you decline to say who got away with it or what they got away with. McIntyre is not responsible for explaining what you meant.”
Briffa and Wahl for circumventing the AR4
you dont even know the basics.
later Mann for passing on the instruction to delete mails.
Steven Mosher: Briffa and Wahl for circumventing the AR4
you dont even know the basics.
later Mann for passing on the instruction to delete mails.
And the biggest reason was: Skeptics who argued that climategate was about the temperature series
That’s according to you.
But the reason that Phil Jones “got away with it” was that Climategate came too late to permit a prosecution. Your assertion is that with a different argument by the unnamed skeptics Briffa, Wahl and Mann would not have gotten away with it. What argument would that have been, and when might it have had the desired effect, and in what venue ought it to have been made?
With Mann in court and lots of amicus curiae briefs filed for his opponent and none for him, I would put it to you that Mann has not “gotten away with it” yet.
Willis and others,
I agree 100% with Mosher on this topic; we’ve talked about it quite a lot. Out of all the CG1 emails especially, only a handful are about CRUTEM, while the overwhelming majority are about paleo.
The coordinated effort to destroy emails was not about CRUtEM; it was about Wahl’s surreptitious changes to the AR4 assessment of the hockey stick dispute.
Willis’ FOI to CRU was the first attempt to use FOI at CRU and I entirely agree with his view that it is a sorry story. Willis’ requests were covered at Climate Audit in detail. However, CRUTEM is scarcely mentioned in the CLimategate dossier and, according to a quick check, Willis’ FOI request was only mentioned in passing in a single email.
While there seems to be some connection between Climategate and CRU’s obstruction of requests for temperature data in summer 2009 (together with their dishonest excuses), I think that the connection is more to do with the Mole Incident, in which CRU re-organized their server access overnight and in which many CA readers parsed through the CRU website, more than one noticing open doors and unprotected passwords. The connection also has something to do with the Yamal incident, which seems to have prompted RC-FOIA to look through the CRU FTP site.
I don’t think anyone can deduce very much from the inclusion of FOIA in the pseudonym of Mr RC_FOIA. He may have no more connection to FOIA than he did to RC (realclimate). There are obvious reasons why RC-FOIA might wish to misdirect authorities as to his identity.
Many skeptics are mostly concerned with temperature data – a topic that has been very secondary at Climate Audit. (While I contested Jones’ refusal of temperature data, I equally warned CA readers not to expect very much if and when the data became available.) Even though the Climategate emails had virtually nothing to do with CRUTEM, skeptics of the temperature record used the occasion to coatrack their issues. Since the emails had nothing much about CRUTEM, Muir Russell, EPA and others were more than happy to respond to concerns about temperature, while mostly evading or pettifogging consideration of the hockey stick issues.
On these issues, Mosher and I agree entirely.
Steve McIntyre | December 3, 2014 at 12:26 am |
Thanks for that explanation, Steve. What I disagreed with was Mosher’s contention that it was “paleo, paleo, paleo, and paleo.” In fact, “paleo” or “tree rings” or “hockeystick” are mentioned in less than a quarter of the emails. So while paleo was a main topic, there were lots of other topics as well.
Agreed … but then I didn’t say otherwise. The coordinated effort to hide from the FOI requests, on the other hand, began with my FOI request and went on from there.
Finally, Mosh said:
Are you saying that you agree 100% with that? You truly believe that if nobody had said anything about temperature series, that the investigations of Muir Russel, EPA, and others would have been thorough and complete?
Really?
Because I hold that the BIGGEST (to use Mosh’s term) reason they got away with it had nothing to do with the actions of the skeptics. The reason they got away with it was that they were investigated by their friends, who were determined to find nothing, did so very successfully, and would have done so under any conditions. The actions of the skeptics were completely irrelevant to that. The investigations were going to be whitewashes no matter what anyone said or didn’t say, skeptics or otherwise. Blaming the skeptics for it misses the point entirely.
Thanks for your contributions to all of this, as always,
w.
willis,
Of course I am overstating the case. some day some skeptics need to own the part they played.
Let me give you an example.
Early on in climategate I got an email from some washington republican types.
Here is what they said:
Great job making CRUTEM and UEA a target in this, can you show us how to drag NOAA into this so we can attack their temperature series
I KID YOU NOT.
well they got an earful. first I had to say that focusing on crutem was a huge mistake.. That HISTORICALLY willis’ foia was important, but the most dirt was in paleo FOLLOW the FOIA.
Second I had to point out that NOAA had nothing to do with these mails
especially on the temp series issues.
So, excuse me if I over stated it, but I was explicitly asked by washing PR types HOW this could be used against NOAA.
That SICKENED me.
Steve McIntyre: On these issues, Mosher and I agree entirely.
I did not agree or disagree. I wanted examples of how unnamed “skeptics”, by suboptimal focus on temperature series, allowed unnamed someones to “get away with” “it”, and how that argument about temperature series was “the BIGGEST reason why they got away with it.”
Consider the example of Mann getting away with passing on a request to delete emails — to date he has gotten away with it because the PSU investigative committee judged the grant income he brought to PSU more important than offenses he may have committed (it was essentially the same exculpation written by essentially the same committee in the Sandusky case.) Phil Jones got away with “it” because the statute of limitations had expired. As for “Mann’s trick to hide the decline” — that phrase was important in the IPCC decision to remove the most famous hockey stick of all from their web page.
Steven Mosher: So, excuse me if I over stated it, but I was explicitly asked by washing PR types HOW this could be used against NOAA.
An important example. But what you wrote was: Skeptics who argued that climategate was about the temperature series
are the BIGGEST reason why they got away with it.
Your example does not support that claim.
I remember asking my grandpa why his hound dogs liked to roll around in cow manure. He said they did it to cover their odor. I think lots of skeptics and deniers are just like them hounds. They roll around in BS, hoping it will conceal their own aroma.
Ad hominumbs
are so anti-the
‘Enlightenment
-Open-Society
-debate.’
Ad-hominumbs
are so-non-
evidence-based
-so-pro-witch-
hunting-burn-
them-at-the-stake-
for-they-are-
‘the-other’!
Max-this-is-not –
okay, the other
Max would never
resort to such
de-human-izing
tactics. Fer
genuine liberals
do not devalue
the individual.
A-serf.
That’s not an ad Hominem, it’s just an insulting analogy. Basically name calling.
I don’t get the analogy.
Is it more conspiracy theory ideation, does he think skeptics say things just mask what they really believe so they can quietly hunt down real answers unnoticed?
You are projecting.
a skeptic is much like a real scientist.
a consensus person is not a real scientist and must use a lot of BS to cover up.
Max, OK, you got it backwards, and if you are not skeptic you cannot be any kind of a scientist.
Max
Bravo Sierra is causing AGW theory to go Tango Uniform
hey serf, there’s some good filth over here
handing out grants in a lake is no basis on which to form a system of science
Deniers and false skeptics made a mountain out of a mole hill with Climategate. They like to revisit and wallow in their big pile of BS. It takes their minds off the hacked e-mails being no more than a bump in the road for climate science.
Deniers and false skeptics believed Climategate was good for climate science, made it more transparent. But more transparency hasn’t changed the science. This must be a huge disappointment.
Isn’t making mountains out of molehills an academic first principle or something like that?
You are a Climategate denier, maxie. The revelation of the behind the curtain machinations of the climate cabal created a mountain of distrust in climate science:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research
That was really the biggest impact of Climategate. The actual emails were not as devastating to the cause as the PERCEPTION of malfeasance. And it lingers to this day. It is at the root of why such a large majority (apparently according to recent polls) are not worried about the subject.
Monfort cites a Republican-friendly Rasmussen survey that’s as stale as week old biscuits, which is to be expected since he’s Republican and stale himself. I shouldn’t have to point out the survey is more than 3-years old.
BTW, readers from the UK think biscuits are cookies. Here in the U.S. cookies are called cookies, not biscuits.
Republicans care little for climate change.
Perhaps if we go deeper into the qualities that characterise a progressive climate ninny – reasons for the difference might emerge. Little suggestion that they have ever read anything or had an original idea, nothing of any technical substance to add merely superficial depersonalisation of the ‘other’ using the same tired old ploys, fueled by an absolute conviction of intellectual and moral superiority that is based on the flimsiest of rationale? Or is that just Max?
A NEW SURVEY
Percent who trust scientists
Democrat 84
Independent 64
Republican 55
Tea Party 34
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/02/tea-partiers-and-traditional-republicans-are-split-on-science/
You take a poll, from a blog, done by an advocacy group as gospel? LOL! You fit right in with the other shamans of the religion.
Old story – classics liberals are much smarter than Democrats.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals
There are many reasons to ‘distrust’ science. Something to do with the creation of highly contagious bird flu in the lab perhaps? As technologies grow ever more powerful – there is every reason to create higher level controls. The burying of the bird flu research for instance.
I have degrees in engineering and environmental science – I distrust ‘scientists’ on the environment, hydrology, climate and medicine for God’s sake.
‘Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials.’ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
So really – perhaps it is just being smarter than progressive ninnies who feel vindicated by putting their hands on their hearts and superficially endorsing science without – like Max – much understanding of actual science.
Rob Ellison sez on December 2, 2014 at 6:34 pm
“Republicans care little for climate change.”
_____
I knew that. Rob, did you know Republicans aren’t big on science. Almost one-half of Republicans don’t trust scientists, according to the survey I just cited.
Yes, the Unicorns are all in agreement with that “study”.
You CAGW Chicken Little’s are failing, maxie. Public opinion polls clearly indicate that all the hysterical hollering about the coming climate apocalypse ain’t scaring the masses. Climategate was the climate science establishment’s Gruber event. Meaningful CO2 mitigation is not going to happen, unless the world get’s a lot hotter in a hurry. But please keep up the blustering, maxie. It’s entertaining. Tell us about the two drowned polar bears, again.
We know you have a few problems with an attention deficit Max – but why don’t you try to read past the first line anyway.
Ananyms for “Rob” and “Don” are spot-on suggestive.
bor – as in bor-ing
nod – as in bor-ing
But Rob is better at it than Don.
That’s a game my wife and I play. We often behave like children with each other. I don’t however mistake it for wit in public.
Max
A Yale study showed that Tea Partiers were actually more scientifically literate than Dems. Maybe that is why they don’t trust scientists. In this discipline they apparently know more than the scientists themselves.
nottawa rafter said on December 3, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
“Max
A Yale study showed that Tea Partiers were actually more scientifically literate than Dems. Maybe that is why they don’t trust scientists. In this discipline they apparently know more than the scientists themselves.”
_______
You may have got than mistaken idea about Dems from reading a piece over at POLITICO by TAL KOPAN (10/17/13 1:53 PM EDT Updated: 10/17/13 3:42 PM EDT). Keep in mind that non-tea partiers is a group consisting of more than Dems.
The following excerpts are from Kopan’s piece:
“A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.”
“Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.”
“However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html#ixzz3KtTBgg00
——–
So, it just means people who identified with the Tea Party were more scientifically literate than people, both liberals and conservative as a group, who didn’t identify with the Tea Party.
Almost one-half of Republicans don’t trust scientists, according to the survey I just cited.
Duh, look at climate model output and actual real data and listen to the “so called” scientists tell us to trust the model output because the actual data must be wrong. After 18 years of this I do doubt that half of the Republicans really still trust consensus climate scientists. It is really a good thing that more and more scientists are returning to being skeptic, like a real scientist must be. Republicans do not trust consensus climate people, who are not really scientists. Scientists must always be skeptic.
> The actual emails were not as devastating to the cause as the PERCEPTION of malfeasance.
An extremely well-founded perception,
given that the profession’s response was a mixture of
– official whitewashes by top management
– sullen silence from the ranks.
Had they instead expelled or punished the Climategate Crooks, the fuss would have been over immediately, and government climate science wouldn’t carry the assumption of fraud and bias it now does.
Muon, you are exactly right. It is always better to rip the cover off and expose the rot all at once, instead of letting it fester and seep out. The emails were damaging, but the whitewash was even more damaging to the reputation as evidenced by the polls showing, not only in America, but around the globe, that people do not fear it any longer, and take disaster proclamations with a great deal of skepticism.
> The actual emails were not as devastating to the cause as the PERCEPTION of malfeasance.
An extremely well-founded perception,
given that the profession’s response was a mixture of
– official whitewashes by top management
– sullen silence from the ranks.
Had they instead expelled or punished the Climategaters, the fuss would have been over immediately, and government climate science wouldn’t carry the assumption of frawd and bias it now does.
The who?? Sounds like a conspiracy..
Another member of the vast conspiracy to attribute everything to conspiracy ideation.
What is a “cabal,” if not a group conspiring to accomplish some goal?
The Climategate emails revealed prominent climate cabal scientists conspiring to: hide declines, evade lawful FOIA requests for data, get non-cabal climate scientists fired, get journal editors fired, re-define the peer review process to suppress non-conforming research etc. etc.
There I said it. Report me to the freaking clowns who write the unintendedly ironic and nonsensical papers about denier conspiracists, whom they imagine are all in the pay of Big Oil.
What exactly is the “climate establishment” there, Don?
I don’t know how many people you think were involved in malfeasance according to those e-mails, but I hope you realize that there is very large community of scientists working on issues related to climate change. And I don’t think the actions of the few should reflect on the rest.
And besides the only people who think “ClimateGate” is relevant to anything important are the “skeptics.” Why is that?
‘Conspiracy’ is such a whisper of a word for this grand, even grandiose, social, political, economic, scientific and global affair; malfeasance such a munificent descriptor. There’s more. There’s much, much, more.
================
I’ve long called this event the greatest example yet of an Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Herd, and there are so many embellishments of the foolishness, manifested in chaotic little cyclones of expressive fury and frustration, dust devils of lunatic activity, especially at the margins of the mass.
========================
Joseph: And besides the only people who think “ClimateGate” is relevant to anything important are the “skeptics.” Why is that?
Consider the example of the Penn State Committee that “exonerated” Michael Mann. They cited the grant money that he brought to the university. They also cited the “prestige” that would be undermined if he had done anything wrong and been shown to have done so. “ClimateGate” threatened the income and prestige of named individuals.
ClimateGate also revealed that the scientists involved were considerably less certain of global warming than was shown by their public comments. From now on, any literate person might think of any scientist’s Congressional testimony: “Is that what you really think, based on the evidence, or are you exaggerating for public policy purposes.” Coupled with Schneider’s recommendation that scientists at least consider lying for public policy purposes, it undermines the public testimony of any scientist. As with any other set of perceived hypocrites, it hits them hardest because they have accused their political opponents of dishonesty.
Money, prestige, reputation for honesty. The exact wording of the text, in context, is serious. Jones escaped prosecution only because the statute of limitations had expired.
What defenses have been offered, other than the statute of limitations having expired? (1) only some of what they wrote was objectionable, not all of it; (2) true believers direct attention away from the texts (e.g. toward motives); (3) perversions of language (e.g. “to hide the decline” did not actually mean “to hide the decline”, but something else.)
Max,
I take it you don’t have to roll with the hounds. It’s your natural aroma.
I don’t need no stinkin deodorant !
Max, I have never ever seen a dog roll in manure. Maybe your version of skeptics and deniers are like dogs who roll in manure. They make for a good story, but in reality, there aren’t that many of them.
Dick, check this out.
Max_OK,Citizen Scientist: I think lots of skeptics and deniers are just like them hounds. They roll around in BS, hoping it will conceal their own aroma.
Specific examples will clarify what you wrote. Otherwise it’s worthless.
Well, deniers and false septics read the hacked e-mails, then speculated wildly about what these messages meant (that’s the BS part), and now years later they like to go over all the BS again ( that’s the roll around in the BS part). You can see here that JC started wallowing in it and others joined in. Deniers and false skeptics know the scientific community thinks they stink, and they hope bringing up Climategate will cover the stink for a little while.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | December 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
“…Deniers and false skeptics know the scientific community thinks they stink…”
And public trust of blogs is in the toilet.
You just have to look at the Tim Ball ‘H!tler’ post over at WUWT to see why.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist: Well, deniers and false septics read the hacked e-mails, then speculated wildly about what these messages meant (that’s the BS part), and now years later they like to go over all the BS again ( that’s the roll around in the BS part)
that’s your idea of specific examples?
Wow, what a great post!
Judith,
Thank heaven you did follow the course you did.
:)
+100 or so. I lack your wonderful poetic instincts.
“As a result of Climategate, there is little tolerance for the editorial gatekeeping ways of trying to keep skeptical papers from being published.”
So to get around this the IPCC leans on Publishers to axe entire journals when a single conclusions paper contains a criticism of their Schtick.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/prp-special-issue/
Tallbloke,
Sorry for the niavety, were ‘entire journals axed’ due to those papers?
I told Tamsin and Richard that their posting at WUWT would end badly . ie the sins (perceived or otherwise) of all of climate science heaped upon them.. I wasn’t quite expecting it to be quite so stupid and vitriolic.
Tamsin and Richard have posted comments at Bishop Hill for years, and are generally respected for it.
Difference in response is those commenting at WUWT had never heard of them, and I didn’t recognize many names commenting. And more tellingly just ignorant random members of USA public having a rant, regardless of consequence and civility because it’s ‘free speech’…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1803216
Barry
‘Difference in response is those commenting at WUWT had never heard of them, and I didn’t recognize many names commenting. And more tellingly just ignorant random members of USA public having a rant, regardless of consequence and civility because it’s ‘free speech’…
Exactly. I think the audience at WIUWT has changed considerably since they won their awards and gained more followers. There are also fewer warmists as well so its mostly singing to the choir.
tonyb
Preaching to the choir not singing.
“Tamsin and Richard have posted comments at Bishop Hill for years, and are generally respected for it.”
Betts gets (deservedly) raked over the coals at BH frequently, such that the Bish has to remind commenters to be polite.
Andrew
hindsight, they should have posted it at Bish.
location, location, location.
Mosh
Wrong. Much too small an audience at the Bish’s, who are mostly British and not in the same league as the conspiracy theorists at WUWT and anyway the latter blog was the one that carried the offending document. It would have been illogical to have posted a riposte at the Bish’s.
tonyb
Tony
Saw this today and thought of your ideas on sea power.
http://www.wavehub.co.uk/
I like the wavehub strategy of evaluating the technologies as a first step. The more feasible IMO is that of piping pressurized water from the sea; just don’t trust running high voltage in that environment.
Cheers
Richard
Richard
Wave hub is close to me in the next county and I have seen the device. It’s interesting but beset by being underfunded and under promoted . That is the problem with much of ocean based technology with the devices that might be plugged into wave hub being not very robust.
I think there is Potentially a Great future for wave/ tidal and other ocean based energy such as you suggest but the trouble is that other renewable technologies such wind power get all the attention and funding.
Britain of all countries would benefit hugely from using the ocean as nowhere is more than 70 miles from it but I can’t see much attention being paid to it in the foreseeable future.
Tonyb
“other renewable technologies such wind power get all the attention and funding.”
If something works it gets funded. Investors seek ROI
Tony
Sea Power should be on the table, especially for the UK. There’s a project in western Australia, described at the wave hub website, that is interesting.
Richard
Rob
Not disagreeing with your comment, but something as politically charged as renewables should be given seed corn funding from the govt who should be ensuring that the most appropriate technologies with potential are encouraged,
Obviously ocean power is a non starter in many countries but Britain has the technology, resources and geography to really benefit from investment in ocean renewables.
tonyb
Richard
I looked at that Australian project which said this;
‘The CETO system is different from other wave energy devices as it operates under water where it is safer from large storms and invisible from the shore. The technology is capable of generating power onshore or offshore depending upon the specific characteristics of a project site.’
This might work, as the problem in the past has been that too many devices sit on the waves then get wrecked in the first big storm or when wave amplitude is short and steep.
tonyb
When I was a kid my favorite alt-energy gimmick was Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Completely impractical of course, but sort of appealing in a geeky way.
Great and interesting comments, JC. Your gut decisions at Climategate time were most likely correct and the right thing to do. Love your writing.
Per Berkeley Earth’s beginnings, I once mentioned them to an acquaintance, and he responded viciously ” Sorry. I cannot agree with anything funded by the Kock Borthers.” Ok.
The obsession with Big Oil and Koch Brothers is a fascinating case study in social psychology and I don’t have an answer why it is so pervasive. Whenever I discuss this issue or any number of others with my Liberal friends, the reflexive response is always, absolutely always the same. These are not dumb people and are able to think clearly in other areas but they seemed to have been conditioned into a default answer. When asked for empirical evidence they all of a sudden dismiss the need for it even though they pride themselves on being scientific literate.
If this happened only occasionally, it would not be notable. But instead it happens every single time. Fertile territory for some intense study.
I meant Koch Brothers, of course, misspelled. Ah, it’s the “dumbing down” of America, it’s all white or black.
Climategate, 19th November 2009, when the hacked emails were first distributed to servers across the internet, and the subsequent lengthy aftermath, marks a very significant and transformative process in the man-made climate change debate. AGWers would like to airbrush it out of history but they cannot. I quote:
“I am a little reluctant to remind everyone about the so-called “Climategate” incident that was sparked this day five years ago.
Many people, in the end, were embarrassed by this major attack on climate change scientists when it turned out to be nothing more than manufactured media hype. Nine independent inquiries by multiple agencies all arrived at the same conclusion that the Climategate conspiracy was nonsense.”
Interestingly enough, the only inquiry that was never concluded was the failed criminal investigation by the UK police into who hacked and stole the private documents.
The fact is that a small number of words (three to be exact) found in over 20,000 pages of stolen documents were taken out of context and spun for the media. All to fit the conspiracy theories of a small band of climate deniers who will never be convinced that climate change is happening and that burning fossil fuels like coal and oil is predominantly to blame.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/19/climategate-five-years-later
Which is, of course, absolute nonsense.
Instead, it is assumed by those pushing the AGW agenda that an interest in Climategate, considering the 9 independent enquiries which failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing, must per se be unhealthy and evidence, yet again, of conpiratorial thinking. Sounds familiar. Cue Lewandowsky:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/111004/pdf/1748-9326_9_11_111004.pdf
Which brings us to Richard Betts’ and Tamsin Edwards’ post re. Ball at WUWT. Ostensibly, they were riled by his comparison of climate scientists with Nazis, the fact that this nasty name-calling would appear on Anthony Watts’ site in light of their efforts to make peace with Watts and other sceptics at the now infamous Bristol dinner. But if you read Balls’ post, it doesn’t directly compare ANY climate scientists with Nazis. In order to do this you need to make associations which Ball may, or may not have intended. Of course, his example of the Big Lie, taken as it was from Mein Kampf, was bound to invite such speculation and provoke an emotional response, and in that sense was probably not advisable. But there again, Ball himself, like many other sceptics, has been on the receiving end of being unfavourably compared to a Holocaust Denier for years, so perhaps his choice of example was at least understandable. I certainly do not think the bare bones of the text he quoted was technically inappropriate.
The real issue with Balls’ post, though not expressly stated by Betts or Edwards is, I believe, his ‘conspiratorial’ speculation upon motive by the UN and IPCC in their promotion of the supposed ‘strong’ evidence for the existence and threat posed by global warming. Such speculation still does make a lot of people uncomfortable – on either side of the debate, I might add. But to dismiss out of hand the real possibility of a collusion of interests in this regard is simply Ostrich thinking and the Climategate emails prove beyond all reasonable doubt that certain AGW convinced climate scientists at the time were, at the very least, conniving to exclude the dissenting views of other scientists from the published literature, for whatever reason.
Rupert Darwall’s – The Age of Global Warming – is good, covers a lot of the politics, Strong, etc. without sounding conspirational
Thank you very much for that recommendation. My background is atmospheric science and not history or politics…so I’m not entirely sure about all the dots that Darwall is connecting. That said, I haven’t put it down since it appeared on my Kindle. Thanks again. :-)
Jaime Jessop: The fact is that a small number of words (three to be exact) found in over 20,000 pages of stolen documents were taken out of context and spun for the media.
In context, the phrase “to hide the decline” clearly communicated the intent to deceive. Can you show by quoting the entire context that there was no intent to deceive?
And not just “spun for the media”. Plenty of commentary relevant to deception has been quoted exactly, from here and elsewhere, in the court documents for Steyn v Mann; it is cited to support the claim that the phrase “fraudulent hockeystick” is not a libel of Mann.
No trip down climategate memory lane could possibly be complete without the classic M4GW “Hide the Decline”…
David
Always a classic and he is singing with the choir and not preaching to it..
tonyb
I have read several trips down memory lane, in honor of the 5th anniversary, but I must say this was the most enjoyable. It was about the time of your awakening that I started following you, and my respect has grown over the years.
While I disagree with some parts of your conclusions/analyses of the pre and post Climategate worlds, I agree for the most part (I think you may under emphasize the pre, and over emphasize the post). But the one part that perhaps I disagree with most is your impact. Your “matter of fact” analysis does not really show the impact that you had on the debate when Climategate erupted. While your academic career may have suffered in the short term, history will be a much kinder judge of your role, judgement,, ethics and sacrifices. I appreciate all you have done, and all you continue to do.
Dr Curry, I have just reread your two essays; “Heresy and the Creation of Monsters” and “Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop”.
Yours has been quite a journey and I have no doubt an often very traumatic personal journey.
Most people in all walks of life will change course when the pressures of an unexpected shift in a major influence in their lives forces such a change of course.
But to embark on such a major personal change in your life and career driven by little else but your own sense of integrity, honesty and responsibility to science when you had so much to lose in status and personal advancement, plus facing the ire of your peers and scientific compatriots as somebody approaching the apostate status is something that very, very few others in any walk of life have the will power, personal integrity and honesty to attempt, let alone to stay the course and to actually succeed in re-establishing their personal status and regaining an even greater level of respect in the wider community.
Had a Prof.Judith Curry gained important administrative and executive roles in some highly regarded American Universities somewhere as she apparently originally intended then I really doubt that anybody down here in Australia or in the rest of the english speaking world outside of a regional part of the USA would have ever heard of her or attached any more importance to her than they do to so many other supposedly high status administrative officials isolated from the real world in their ivory towered universities .
But Prof Curry that I know of if not [ yet? ] a house hold recogniseable name regularly gets her share of quotes and publicity in some influential parts of the Australian media and across the western climate blog sphere where she is a house hold name..
Prof. Judith Curry and her “Climate Etc” blog are now both very high profile climate reference sources in many quarters and very well known and frequently quoted and referred to, for good or bad, amongst the Climate cognoscenti at all levels right across the western world.
You came to the fork in the road and decided to take the hardest road, the High road for your journey, a road that think you are now finding, leads to the richest personal rewards.
“A journey starts with one step”
You took that step.
I can only wish you well for the rest of your journey where ever it might take you.
Thank you.
I just received an email from the student whose email 5 years ago was included in my post “An open letter . . .” His new message has been added to the main post.
curryja writes in the post: “Well the 1100 comments at WUWT were absolutely vitriolic against Betts and Edwards.”
That, I’m afraid, Judith, is not entirely true. Many people, including me, thanked Tamsin and Richard for their post. Later in the thread, I also congratulated Tamsin for her efforts at answering questions and responding to comments, which as you know, can be a task at a large open forum like WUWT.
Now, don’t going changing your estimate of vitriolic comments to 1098…though it would make me laugh.
Cheers.
curryja. PS: I forgot about that open letter, thanks.
Regards
Bob
well BOB you and willis should do a post together criticizing Ball.
dont expect judith to read all the comments.
Stand up with Willis and write a post.. explain why ball was wrong
Steven Mosher once again reads something into a comment that’s not there.
So Bob you agree that ball is correct and climate scientists are engaged in a big lie.
The ipcc cites Judith nic lewis Anthony Mcintyre spenser Christy.
All big liars?
Let me repeat myself. Steven Mosher once again reads something into a comment that’s not there.
Had you bothered to ask, I would have told you. I didn’t read the controversial post by Ball, Mosher, so I can’t comment either way. I only read the responses to it around the blogosphere.
You have a reading comprehension problem, Mosher. You constantly read between the lines but fail to understand what was written. As a result, once again, you’ve wasted someone’s time.
Adios, Steven.
Heh, I didn’t read Ball either, but it didn’t prevent me from ‘tsking’ at Richard, and frisking at Tamsin.
========================
Be careful, kim. Because we both admitted we have not read Ball’s post, Mosher will be suggesting we co-author a post about not reading it.
Happy holidays, kim, if I don’t run into you between then and now.
sorry Bob.. but you did read it.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
Yes – there is a big lie.
With Climategate, we learned that scientists were using phrases like “hide the decline” and “Mike’s nature trick” amongst themselves to discuss how to present data. That, together with the universally accepted 100% consensus about the non-predicted “hiatus” makes me wonder why these people have any credibility left. They destroyed their own credibility with the public.
They were referring to ‘Nature’, the magazine. And , onc again, the ‘decline’ being ‘hidden’ was in proxy records that were disagreeing with more *direct* measures of temperature. They weren’t ‘hidden’ to anyone who actually cared to look. Certainly scientists arlready had published on the divergence. And that ‘universally accepted 100% consensus about the hiatus — what fever dream did you pull that out of? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/
An excellent and thoughtful post, which led me to read “Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop”, which ends with:
“The role of scientists should not be to develop political will to act by hiding or simplifying the uncertainties.”
I strongly agree with this premiss. It caused me to wonder. Who is permitted to hide and simplify uncertainties in order to develop a political will to act? How about Kerry and Obama? How about Holdren? How about the US Congress (abetted by Jonathan Gruber) in hiding the details and simplifying Obamacare in order to get it passed? In a sense the Climategate emails were similar to Gruber’s off the cuff remarks. Fortunately we have the emails and thanks to you and others for exposing the IPCC house of cards.
I suppose that those that go down the path of obfuscation do so much for the reasons attributed to Gruber (the assumption that the public is too stupid or lazy to understand complex issues) so adopt the KISS principle. Clearly an ends justify the means approach.
I think that what we are seeing here is exactly what Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address regarding “scientific and technical elites”.
“Senator James Inhofe stated that Climategate was the death knell of carbon cap and trade legislation. ”
One criticism I have of the climate debate on blogs is the apparent failure to think beyond the science squabble. Several more important things were going on in 2009. In the US, Democrats were elected in ’08 on the promise of jobs and ending the recession, they weren’t going to increase the cost of energy.
Europe learned its spending levels were unsustainable and, more importantly, that it’s profligate spending on global warming was having no impact on emissions. Europe also discovered the Malthusian environmental movement had it backwards, the problem wasn’t population growth, it was decline. You can’t make the math work for the modern welfare state with birthrates well under 2 per couple unless you have large easily assimilated immigrant pools. And immigrants weren’t assimilating.
Finally and most importantly, in 2009, Der Spiegel went public with something everyone really knew: carbon trading was a very real UN sponsored scam.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/the-climate-mafia-fraudulent-emissions-trading-schemes-rob-german-tax-authorities-a-665594.html
The UN’s oil-for-food scam was fresh on everyone’s mind, it was no stretch to see the IPCC as the center of the UNs next swindle. This is the “hoax” and it’s real. Climategate was icing on the cake, it was the opportunity for the press to get around to reporting that the catastrophe was over-hyped, the excuse for real scientists to examine the pause, and the opportunity for politicians who’d bought the hype to back away without losing face.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great comment ++++
What I chiefly remember about Climategate was a bunch of talking heads predicting the end of the world, either as a result of some right-wing anti-science oil-fired conspiracy or consequent to a red-green Luddite attempt to return us to the Pleistocene. But there was one interview (and only one) that gave me some hope. Some slightly frazzled looking American academic who talked about uncertainty … I think the name was Curry …
“As far as I know, there are no outstanding FOIA requests for data (other than possibly some of Mann’s HS data and documentation).”
That would stick out like a sore thumb in court.
That line triggered me: “studying and understanding the various manifestations of climate change skepticism”
Could be interesting to se the same sort of analysis of climate believers.
There are really only two things I remember about Climategate. First was the proclamation that they would get to the bottom of it and find the hacker. Second was seeing Phil Jones distraught, apologetic and crying. I didn’t know who Phil Jones or for that matter who Michael Mann were at that time. Other than that my general impression was that government scientists got caught cheating.
Later I was glad it all happened as I began occasionally reading Climate Etc when I was trying to educate myself about climate change and didn’t know what to believe from various blogs online. I liked CE as I perceived it as being somewhat unbiased with perspectives from differing views. Most blogs came off to me as being authoritative and one sided. So whatever affect there was in the wider world my little world changed simply by finding the ‘heretic’ Dr Curry and the denizens.
History will care…and it will remember…
Third times a charm and lessons learned in insulting others grandfathers.
But global warming is definitely not a conspiracy – and those who say so are conspiracy nuts. 97% of scientists think that denial of imminent climate doom is the work of a vast, underground conspiracy. Creationists, anti-vaccers, smokers are all part of the same anti-science conspiracy – and are all conservative,old, white guys.
The reality is that there is a conspiracy of absurd doom scenarios in support of insane social and economic policy. This should either admit to it – or distance themselves from this virulent social movement.
“Anti-science conspiracy” …
http://ushumanityparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cigarette.jpg
… now THERE’s a term that scientists and citizens have heard before, eh Rob Ellison?
http://theloungeisback.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/joe_camel.jpg
Why do so many of the same institutions and individuals that once aggressively spread anti-scientific tobacco-doubt now aggressively spread anti-scientific climate-doubt?
The world wonders!
Not.
The irony is Man and his stick by making the MWP ‘disappear’ have done far more denying of changes in climate than all those attacked as climate change deniers who in realty have never denied the climate changes at all. Meanwhile I suggest at where St Gore made his money and the link between the advocacy groups pushing AGW and the ‘evil fossil fuel industry ‘
If you really want to get a smearing contest you better make sure you’re not lecturing others about being dirty while standing in bucket of your own filth.
QED. 97% of climate ninnies have identified a vast right wing conspiracy to cynically sell unsafe product to clueless consumers. Perfectly true – although they have given up on sowing doubt about tobacco health impacts and have moved on to not really giving a damn about global warming.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
‘As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).’ Anastasios Tsonis – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Mathematical Sciences
This is of course no possible reason to question ‘the science’ on imminent climate doom – or the role of corporate greed in destroying the planet.
.
You should cut Tsonis some slack. He made that “we may be cooling” prediction back in 2013 before it looked like 2014 might become the warmest year yet, something he couldn’t have know back then so let’s not be so hard on him. I say wait a few decades for cooling to start before giving up on him.
‘That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.’ Trenberth
There were two things that struck me as funny in the 2 most famous emails. The ‘hide the decline’ and the ‘surely it isn’t decadal’ emails. That was as far as I bothered to read in fact.
Hiding the decline is obviously a questionable scientific procedure – and surely it isn’t decadal is just tragically incompetent given what was known at the time.
I note that the PDO turned positive in 2007 – giving hope that the big lie would be redeemed by a deus ex machina intervention. They are still looking for this miraculous turnaround. A super El Nino, A reversal of the PDO. The hottest year on record – in an accident of early warming of the central Pacific. Perhaps we should do a running 12 month mean instead?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12
Even using the calendar year – hundredths of a degrees is hardly definitive – do you think? It is quite obvious that nothing has changed – it is multi-decadal – the big distortion and spin continues – the delusion is as vivid as ever.
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
The suggestion of non-warming – or even cooling – for 2 to 4 decades from 2002 was actually much earlier than 2013. In fact the original climate shift paper came out in the same year. But what the above paragraph means is without a doubt well above Max’s pay grade. Someone whose forte is dogs rolling in shit, very inadequate puns and quite ludicrous attempts to mock people – like Tsonis – with vastly more smarts.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/abstract
‘That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.’ Trenberth
There were two things that struck me as funny in the 2 most famous emails. The ‘hiding the decline’ and the ‘surely it isn’t decadal’ emails. That was as far as I bothered to read in fact.
Hiding the decline is obviously a questionable scientific procedure – and surely it isn’t decadal is just tragically incompetent given what was known at the time.
I note that the PDO turned positive in 2007 – giving hope that the big lie would be redeemed by a deus ex machina intervention. They are still looking for this miraculous turnaround. A super El Nino, A reversal of the PDO. The hottest year on record – in an accident of early warming of the central Pacific. Perhaps we should do a running 12 month mean instead?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12
Even using the calender year – a record of a hew hundredths of a degree – if it occurs – is within statistical reach of utter meaninglessness. It is quite obvious that nothing has changed – it is multi-decadal – the big distortion and spin continues – the delusion is as vivid as ever.
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature. ‘http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
The suggestion of a lack of warming – or even cooling – for 20 to 40 years from 2002 was made well before 2013. Although what the above paragraph means is so far above Max’s pay grade that he will never get it.
Actually I think you might find he, and a few others were saying that earlier than that. But, depending on the record you look at, the overall trend has been a slight and stastistically insignificant decline since 2001/2, short excursions to near or above the “record” maximum. It’s trends that matter.
‘It is hypothesized that persistent and consistent trends among several climate modes act to ‘kick’ the climate state, altering the pattern and magnitude of air-sea interaction between the atmosphere and the underlying ocean. Figure 1 (middle) shows that these climate mode trend phases indeed behaved anomalously three times during the 20th century, immediately following the synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s. This combination of the synchronization of these dynamical modes in the climate, followed immediately afterward by significant increase in the fraction of strong trends (coupling) without exception marked shifts in the 20th century climate state. These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean. Similar behavior has been found in coupled ocean/atmosphere models, indicating such behavior may be a hallmark of terrestrial-like climate systems [Tsonis et al., 2007].’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
These synchronization events suggest that the Earth system is deterministically chaotic – and that the changes in the trajectory of surface temperature – around 1910, the mid 1940’s, the late 1970’s and 1998/2001 are quite natural changes in the system state involving abrupt changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation. It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Clouds did seem to change about the right time.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wong2006figure7.gif
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
But if anything the rate of ocean warming seemed to decline in Argo – although with great uncertainty.
Fourteen coolings and warmings since 1980? Très amusant. The pause was predicted a decade or more since – and Maxy’s absurd attempts at citizen science notwithstanding – the pause is likely to continue for another decade to three.
Whoops – wrong graph.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/earthshine.jpg
Here’s a bonus one from Kyle Swanson at realclimate.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/swanson-realclimate.png
It shows warming resuming in 2020 – which is in fact the minimum period these regimes persist for. The study being discussed says the period is indeterminate.
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’
Indeterminate it may be – but these regimes lat for 20 to 40 years in the long proxy records. Nor is it guaranteed to shift to yet warmer conditions after that as the planet crosses the threshold of Bond event zero – and with a cooling Sun.
Maxy imagines he has the smarts to criticize real science and mock real scientists. Not even close. It happens quite frequently – simpletons superciliously hectoring scientists who they imagine depart from a party line learned in blogospheric echo chambers. There is very little that is sillier in the climate war. .
Sorry, Rob, I didn’t know you are a “real scientist.” I’ve been misled by you spending 24 hours a day here pretending to be a sucker.
Well – I have degrees in engineering – specialising in hydrology – and in environmental science. Close enough? But I really had in mind Tsonis and a particular hectoring ‘correction’ of his ‘denier science’ on one of many sites devoted to revealing skeptic errors. Laughable nonsense in other words.
But Maxy seems to be the one wasting our time with many, many comments on dogs rolling in it, how skeptics stink and other such profundities.
Well don Maxy.
Compare this modern warming to the Roman and Medieval Warming. We are probably not at the peak of this warming yet, but the peak is not very much higher. This warm period will persist as the Roman and Medieval Warm periods persisted, and then, after a few hundred years of more snowfall and increasing ice volume, the ice will advance and cools the earth again.
It snows more in warm times and it snows less in cold times and that regulates temperature in the new modern, ten thousand years of a much tighter bounded temperature cycle.
The smear campaign is not working.
Nor is the threading.
Michael Mann can now be associated with Big Tobacco.
The Camel ads are indeed highly relevant.
Back then tobacco-funded scientists pronounced smoking perfectly safe, since this promoting this view would enable their paymaster to expand and prosper.
In exactly the same way today, government climate scientists pronounce the world to be in danger from CO2, since promoting this view will enable their paymaster to expand and prosper.
Seems like motherhood and apple pie issues?
So, what are we to make of all this?
• The ‘establishment’ has maintained that Climategate… and We found inquiries to be Insightful!
• There was the “Wegman Report” which told the Truth!
So, what has changed…?
This foolishness still has the smell of “Mom’s” pie and sad results from Kiddies at the Table.
Dr.,
Hero is a title Won by Few.
YOU make THE Difference!!!
Best Wishes to You and Yours this Holiday Season!
Best Regards,
John
‘That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.’ Trenberth
There were two things that struck me as funny in the 2 most famous emails. The ‘hiding the decline’ and the ‘surely it isn’t decadal’ emails. That was as far as I bothered to read in fact.
Hiding the decline is obviously a questionable scientific procedure – and surely it isn’t decadal is just tragically incompetent given what was known at the time.
I note that the PDO turned positive in 2007 – giving hope that the big lie would be redeemed by a deus ex machina intervention. They are still looking for this miraculous turnaround. A super El Nino, A reversal of the PDO. The hottest year on record – in an accident of early warming of the central Pacific. Perhaps we should do a running 12 month mean instead?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12
It is quite obvious that nothing has changed – it is multi-decadal – the big distortion and spin continues – the delusion is as vivid as ever.
It’s funny how often they jump the gun given climate is a long term proposition.
Mann’s hockey stick paper was published in 1998. Climategate happened in 2009.
How come that from 1998 to 2009 climate scientists did not notice the nonsensical nature of the hockey-stick ? Did they need climategate to “open their eyes”? Are climate scientists so terribly incompetent that they can’t read and asses a paper? Are they so obtuse? Was the uncertainty monster born only in 2009 ?
How could such nonsense as the hockey-stick be published, and pushed with such vehemence and force upon the public? And adopted as the cover illustration on IPCC’s TAR ? And all the climate science community actively applauded with enthusiasm!
It is really a most puzzling phenomenon. One of a whole series.
Emperor No Clothes Syndrome?
So, in the Emperor fable, our scientists would be the fools? Which is more plausible “fools” or “conspirators”? or both ?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
…
Sorry article is too polemic and lacking any “such as”; “for example”…
Bloody lightweight.
Talk of leadership. This not a fecking political movement or at least it shouldn’t be. Curry seems to be part of the problem in this respect.
The “sociology of climate science” says all one needs to know about how twisted this branch of science has become. Curry, once a bridge is now part of the problem. She seems confused as to whether this a branch of physical science or a anthropogenic peculiarity.
I dont give a crraap anymore this, like Curry, is becoming irrelevant. We are now see the passing of a political generation that gives as@”t
Need to add…
….gives a s@”t now giving way to those tgat dont. Curry now sees her celebrity vanish. How will they (Watts etc.) react? With selif-grandiose articles like this. Beware the skeptic whose interests mirror the believer!
What can one say about vicious anonymous trolls who issue self-grandiose proclamations while slithering about in their own slime?
Skiphil
Do you not wonder, where would this website or similar ones be if it weren’t for the scare.
I believe it is a scare. So logically the existence of any skepticism is dependent on the existence of the belief in the scare itself. Surely it is natural to ask, how does any – apparently to me at least – self-indulgent polemic like this really help anyone other than the writer [and her own standing]. Furthermore, do certain writers’, scientists’ interests benefit from the scare. Ask yourself would anyone have even heard of Anthony Watts (as fine as his work is) if the scare hadn’t have existed.
I’ve been followed this for quite a while now and I’m starting to become cynical about the whole thing both for and against.
Oh, please, don’t disdain one of the greatest intellectual adventures of all(well, our) time.
===================
@ Jacob
“It is really a most puzzling phenomenon. One of a whole series.”
The purpose of Climate Science, in the government/UN/NGO sense (which is essentially ALL of it), is to produce Hockey Sticks.
The purpose of Hockey Sticks is to justify legislation, regulations, and taxes, with progressives doing the legislating, regulating, and taxing.
So far, judged by comparison of results against objectives, Climate Science has been one of the most spectacularly successful ventures ever conceived of by the progressives. And based on the stories celebrating the oncoming onslaught of government actions to control Evil Carbon, the success has only just begun. The current generation of college students and primary school students are fully on board with the program, to the point where they are essentially impervious to observation. When faced with the choice of ‘Who ya gonna believe, the Climate Experts (the self selected 97%, of course) or your lyin’ eyes?’, the choice is invariably ‘The experts!’. Followed by demands that the government stop coddling the ‘deniers’ and start doing the job for which governments are established: saving us from Thermogeddon.
Can we all agree that there is no political or scientific conspiracy to promote global warming? A conspiracy in this case would mean that scientists and or politicians know that the claims made by scientists are false or exaggerated. The other alternative is the one Dr. Curry offers that scientists are blind to the faults with the science and the IPCC. While I don’t think this alternative is correct either because it requires lumping thousands of individuals into some group and applying a psychological diagnosis. I don’t think that can be done logically. Especially considering that scientists are taught to consider new ideas and in doing so they can make a name for themselves like Dr. Curry is attempting to do.
@ Joseph
“Can we all agree that there is no political or scientific conspiracy to promote global warming?”
No.
There is a conspiracy to retail disaster scenarios to justify insane social and economic agendas – and to create the justification for this in some portion of what otherwise passes as science. Real science is a broad church that has both uncertainties and inconsistencies. There is a conspiracy to gloss over this.
It is admittedly difficult to distinguish the big lie from a millennialist psychopathology – but it makes no real difference.
Joseph,
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy. More of a common objective. And you are incorrect on the other alternative. The alternative is stupidity and incompetence – i.e. they really believe the scare stories and that is what is motivating them. I hope it is the former and not the latter.
“Can we all agree that there is no political or scientific conspiracy to promote global warming?” Assume there is one. Does it sell? Only to a segment of the population. Is that our target segment? No. Our target segment is broader, larger. Like this:
http://www.vansairforce.net/Graphics/bellcurve.jpg
A says global warming is a real immediate threat. B says A is a conspiratorial threat. Is there a lot of difference between A and B?
Joseph, you lump two things. Is there a political ‘conspiracy’ concerning the desired changes we are supposed to embrace because of climate change? Absolutely. From Greenpeace and WWF to Obummer and the EPA. Gruberized from the gitgo. Many examples in many essays in Blowing Smoke.
Is there a scientific conspiracy. Probably not, although IPCC does provide counterarguments. But there sure is a politically correct grant gravy train flowing to climate science from politically determined bodies like themUS government’s NOAA, NASA, and USGS that is a functional equivalent. As Judith’s own experience since Climategate proves.
Not a conspiracy, since it has been an open agenda from the very beginning. The IPCC was only supposed to look for “the human fingerprint”, so they excluded everything having to do with the Sun, so they could get the UN’s Agenda 21 implemented.
“Agenda 21 is a United Nations advisory document, adopted in 1992 by 178 signatory nations including the U.S., which provides guidelines for sustainable development. But opponents of the plan see it as something more sinister: In her book Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, Koire describes Agenda 21 as “the action plan to inventory and control all human beings and resources on the planet.””
http://fortune.com/2014/06/18/agenda-21/
I also made the important point that the conspirators must “know” that they are exaggerating. Greenpeace may have a selection bias and make mistakes in terms of exaggerating something. But it’s difficult to prove they are intentionally lying, if not impossible, without tangible proof. I don’t think Obama is knowingly making false nor do i think the EPA are doing so. They rely on the IPCC reports which makes clear the Earth is warming due AGW and that the risks in the long term are there if not mitigated against. If you want to blame anyone, you should be blaming the IPCC.
Should we care whether they are lying or deluded?
Ignorant or disingenuous? Always the same question, the same question.
============
You pretty much nailed it here Rud.
As for most of the scientists, they’re going to pretty much follow the grant money and will jump on gravey trains whenever they can.
Joseph,
I don’t think there is a conspiracy. But I disagree with your description of the alternative. I don’t think it requires lumping thousands into a group and applying a psychological diagnosis. Seeing what you want to see, being blind to your own biases is a natural human condition, it is the norm. Avoiding it requires constant self reflection and effort. Scientists are not immune to it.
I would also say that when other competing emotions/external forces get mixed in it makes it even more difficult to rise above your bias. Things like pride, status, politics, religion, financial gain, etc. These are all at play in climate science.
I do think there is a subtle pseudo-religious belief system in our culture. The underlying belief produces some sort of guilt about our technology and the wealth we have created. It also has some degree of worship of earth or nature. I think this plays a role in the views of some climate scientists.
Having said all that, I think CO2 causes warming, just not as much as sometimes advertised and the “solutions” being offered are potentially worse than the problem. I also think that many people who oppose or hate fossil fuels fail to appreciate the extraordinary benefits that we have gained from using them.
==> “Seeing what you want to see, being blind to your own biases is a natural human condition, it is the norm. ”
Well, except for “skeptics.”
They’re immune to those biases.
Doncha know.
Everyone has a bias to exaggerate? I don’t understand.. I think every scientist has the motive to do meaningful groundbreaking work. Why is it only climate scientists that are being singled out? If not only climate scientists, should we doubt all science because there is bias and incentives to exaggerate?
Joseph,
I didn’t say it was only climate scientists.
Every scientist wants to do groundbreaking work… maybe, but what if they have a theory that they really like and it happens to be wrong. There can be any number of beliefs or external pressures that bias them. When I was younger there was a guy on public access TV who had show about creationism. He was a PhD Biologist who could tell a very nice sciencey sounding story and connect all sorts of facts together to prove that the planet was 6000 years old. His bias was religious.
Some scientists love to be right, they come up with a theory and start promoting it. Admitting that they were wrong might be simply difficult or emotionally painful, they might lose some level of prestige.
then there’s the financial motive, I see scientists all the time who have an idea, turn it into a business and suddenly they have a financial motive that can bias them.
Perhaps climate science is a little unique in that it has been elevated to such a high level of public awareness. Also, there is the political element. I know some skeptics push the financial motive, but I don’t put much stock in that one. I think the most powerful bias for a climate scientist is the idea that they are saving humanity from doom and i think intertwined in that is a belief system that I mentioned previously. These are very powerful biases that a climate scientist may have to navigate.
So you ask Should we doubt all science because there is bias? That’s up to you. The best thing you can do is know what you know and better yet, know what you don’t know. If there is something you don’t know, there is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know” even if a scientist says its so. If you have a problem saying “I don’t know”, then you are going to have to choose who to believe and who not to believe, but that is not science. If a scientist says says something that doesn’t seem to fit with observations, then maybe you should doubt them.
There is culture in climate science, institutions, and politics that seem to reinforce biases more than other sciences.
There is a self selection bias, it attracts people who “believe”. The believers also dissuade more cynical thinkers from taking up the studies (I wanted to study some environment sciences when I was choosing my major, but I couldn’t stand the zealots in the fields).
And there is simply the prominence of climate science, it gets big play in the media and politics.
Dick, the problem with this explanation is that for every area that you think is being exaggerated, you would have to “know” that every individual in the group has the same bias in the same direction and is unaware of it. I don’t think you can logically do that. Trying to generalize in that way is not possible.
“Dick, the problem with this explanation is that for every area that you think is being exaggerated, you would have to “know” that every individual in the group has the same bias in the same direction and is unaware of it. I don’t think you can logically do that. Trying to generalize in that way is not possible.”
I don’t know that it is the same bias, but the group makes it easier to miss a bias that favors the group. And the group would tend to be more critical of arguments against the group. That is why it is called group think.
Joseph
I worked with environmentalists for decades and advocated their cause in the legislative process They are well meaning people and true believers with a blind spot. They think NEPA created a gatling gun of veto pens rather than providing a seat at the table to ensure the environment is represented in the decision making process. I’m still waiting for an depth discussion by society to balance marginal costs against marginal benefits.
Joseph Can we all agree that there is no political or scientific conspiracy to promote global warming? A conspiracy in this case would mean that scientists and or politicians know that the claims made by scientists are false or exaggerated.
In reverse order.
“Conspiracy” does not imply that the conspirators know themselves to be in the wrong somehow. It can include such things as a grant review committee genuinely believing that an idea counter to “consensus science” can’t be worth pursuing: violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example, or exploring energy transfers other than by radiation.
No. Scientists named in the ClimateGate emails acted to suppress dissident views, and acted in public to suppress the uncertainties surrounding the idea of catastrophic warming. They have acted to punish even mild dissent (Bengtsson at GWPF, Pielke at Nate Silver’s blog.)
Really? How do you reconcile that with the actual definition of a “conspiracy.”
An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Acombination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Joseph: Acombination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
The “ORs” have it. Consider folks who secretly conspired to assassinate Adolph Hitler. There conspiracy did not imply that they considered themselves to be wrong.
Is this the legacy of climategate in the UK?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/161827/trust_graph_600x360.jpg
Judith needs to staple this to her forehead so she’s reminded of the reality of ‘skeptical blogs’ everytime she looks in the mirror.
Michael
You seem to have posted an 18 month old graphic from a well known UK green activist organisation using a poll derived from self selection of respondents.
Judith needs to remain sceptical, as do you.
tonyb
no scientists need to staple it to their forehead every time they
1. Hide data
2. understate uncertainty
3. scream about extreme examples ( arctic death spiral) rather than the central estimate.
In short, people trust sceintists. protect that trust by following best practices.
Mosher
Best of Show comment
yes, people trust scientists, not blogs and people who comment on them.
Probably because they;
1. scream cluelessly about ‘raw data’
2. make petulant demands for others work through FOI’s
3. act like jerks
In short, they maintain this lack of trust by following worst prctices.
Michael: 2. make petulant demands for others work through FOI’s
You object to FOIA? It’s a legitimate way for citizens to scrutinize the work of people in government who would rather not be scrutinized. In climate science, the FOIA requests were direct and polite; sharing of data and code are now required for publication in the best journals (in theory, any way; my few requests were not met with success.) Whether the request seems to the recipient to have been written in petulant language is incidental to the spirit and literal wording of the law. The ClimateGate emails show the petulance to have been on the side of the recipients, and they prevaricated in trying to evade compliance.
The only ones over 50% are the scientists/meteorologists. The ones to trust the least are the politicians. Green charities in 2nd place only garner about 40%. So we have the scientists/meteorologists and then an anarchy of little trust. I wonder who did this?
Wrong question Ragnaar. The right question is how much are they trusted and who cares. Or is that 2 questions? The answer is not much and progressive climate ninnies.
==> “…The answer is not much …”
And Chief knows this because….
…er.
…um…
Well, he does consider himself an authority.
There are a couple of surveys linked above Josh. Feel free to peruse to your hearts content.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/storage/thumbnails/4177295-25705220-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1416958780608
http://www.culturalcognition.net/storage/thumbnails/4177295-25720814-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1417404743493
Ragnaar
The Carbon Brief, a green activist company who purport to be independent and objective.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/
They may well be correct but I would want to see that confirmed in an up to date poll conducted in an objective conventional manner.
tonyb
I’m afraid charts like this just betray the ignorance of the pollster. No sensible person would conflate meteorologists and climate scientists in the same category and the fact that they managed to lure a gullible polling audience into assuming they were one category is simply another example of the kind of misinformation that is perpetuated in this business.
Well here is another example for the US on views about global warming. I would say that is a good proxy for trust in the science. So you will see since 2010 views by Democrats haven’t changed, Republicans are up by 10 points, and Independents are up 7 points.
http://alumni.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/image/Gallup%20global%20warming%20chart.gif
oops got Republicans and Independents mixed up.
since 08 what do you see
Mosher,
He sees a steady rise, faster than they predicted in fact. It’s better than they thought! Just like temps!
since ’04 what do you see?
Since 01 what do you see?
cherry picking, Mosher-style!
==> “Since 01 what do you see?”
Not much change with Indies and Dems, with something of a drop with Repubs.
And if you broke out the Christian Right and hardcore libertarians and Tea Party types from among the Repubs, I’d guess you’d get an more significant drop with Repubs.
Which just underscores how the climate war is basically a political proxy battle.
Well, except for “skeptic,” of course. Unlike everyone else, they are only interested in “pure” science and “ethics.” They are only focused on the science and as such have risen above biases.
joseph.. you suggest looking at 2010.
As michael pointed out.. you were cherry picking..
opps he didnt point that out.
Michael ONE WAY of pointing out cherry picking ( look at 2010 and after) is to suggest another date.
There is an interesting thing about this chart that no one has seen..
Micheal.. you try
Steven, I picked 2010 because that’s when ClimateGate took off. I am gauging the response of the public to ClimateGate.
Steve, the legacy if you will..
“They are only focused on the science”
Joshua,
How’s come you aren’t?
Andrew
Related to the graph is a recent poll by Gallup that asked the open ended question “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
1% answered environment/pollution – there is no separate category for climate warming/change.
19% answered dissatisfaction with government. IMO that may be troubling for the CAGW folks.
What is the relationship of this poll to the graph above? Dunno, it’s a question that pollsters might be able to answer.
Cheers,
Richard
‘since ‘o8 what do you see’? I see a cherry picked high point for Independents and Dems. It’s 1998 all over again, Mosh!
Losing an argument can turn anyone into a dick.
” Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts responded over at WUWT with a post A big (goose) step backwards, where they criticize Ball’s post for the Mein Kampf quote and for snide remarks about the IPCC, without actually engaging with the real content of the post. ” – JC
WTF!??
“Content”?????
It was all N@zis, H!tler and conspiracy theory.
Judith,
your BS meter is busted.
Like Tisdale, I don’t think Judith read it either.. Who in their right mind would want to read that ****?
As an optical scientist with reasonable academic credentials and a one-time contributor to Judith’s blog, I’d like to express my appreciation to her. There are bloggers that write unpleasant things and then squash dissent, and then there are those like Prof. Curry who, while determined to remain civil, recognize the value of a certain amount of caustic chaos in blog comments. None of us truly knows what motivates one another’s skepticism (or warmism) — in my case, it was a combination of personal exposure to editorial misconduct (some of which came out in climategate), awareness of the many physical effects unaddressed in the climate models and, yes, a nagging worry about the handling and the adjustments to the land based climate record. And this was all before the pause had taken hold.
So thank you, Judith.
there is something about human beings that requires apocalyptic story telling
“the end is near”
climate doom is the apocalyptic story of the secular bourgeoisie, who’s hipster atheism no longer allows them to sit in churches and be scared by the possibility of eternal damnation
how else to tame the gluttonous urges of runaway affluence
it’s simple
been going on for centuries
can’t pray for salvation
can’t sacrifice virgins
have to give up cars and air conditioning
“There is something about human beings that requires apocalyptic story telling.” I suspect that this was not the case in the hunter-gatherer era, with groups of 50-150, but was developed as a technique of control by power-mongers in larger groupings following the move to and growth of settlements. If those in charge could present themselves as intermediaries between the plebs and the forces of apocalypse, it gave them the capacity and to direct and control the lesser orders. As is happening with alleged CAGW.
February 22, 1946, the peace after WW2 was less than a year
old. George Keenan responds to a despondent telegram from
the US Treasury regarding the latest rebuff by Stalin.,.’How
does one explain such behavior on the part of the Soviet
Government? What lay behind it?’
Keenan responds with what was dubbed, ‘The Long Telegram,’
an 8,000 word treatise beginning with Soviet behavior and
ending as a dissertation on ideology as a tool for the exercise
of power and to satisfy the appetites of men. Doesn’t mention
women but guess we’ll count them in too. )
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/acatholicthinker/2014/03/george-kennan-vladimir-putin-the-appetites-of-men/
Kennan: ““Now the maintenance of this pattern of Soviet power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, has gone far to shape the actual machinery of Soviet power as we know it today. Internal organs of administration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Soviet power came to rest on the iron discipline of the Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state.”
Small government, anyone?
Nice post John Smith. I wonder though if we “require apocalyptical storytelling” or if its just something (like gooey sweet desserts) that too many of us easily embrace. As with desserts I wonder if, perhaps for biological reason or perhaps due to socialization, some of us are more easily seduced than others by a good disaster narrative. Unfortunately most of us, often to our detriment, easily succumb to both good desserts, and a heaping helping of guilt, induced by the fear of disaster.
> have to give up cars and air conditioning
Not a hope :)
John Smith, eloquent. Deep. You have more than returned the favor upthread. May I have permission to cite with attribution?
If the Sun is a pulsar, then reality is that mankind is powerless over the future.
Even Barbara Streisand and Al Gore can’t predict the future, but they can sneer at the religionists who told them a Higher Power controls our fate.
Mr. Istvan
thanks, of course, would be honored
(the deep part was likely an accident)
omanuel
if we can gain control of the forces of climate
I’m sure the solar system
the galaxy
and engines of stars can only be next
stop stellar change
Also express thanks to Dr Curry who maintained integrity and honesty in the face of pressure and name calling. This blog has been a beacon of light in a confusing fog of misleading and dishonest claims of certainty and settled science. This has been very educational. Thankyou so much.
Scott
Agreed,
“wie ein Fels in der Brandung”
we say here.
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.
Pingback: Potpourri
Australian people at their best.Farewell to a fine young sportsman.
Dignified, respectful and moving.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-03/thousands-turn-out-to-farewell-phillip-hughes-at-funeral/5935422
Beth
Moving sounds and images and the grief from Cricketers around the world demonstrate the camaraderie of this sport.
tonyb
Tony,
The ceremony made me think of the line from a poem by
Philip Larkin: ”What will survive of us is love.’
bts
Beth
Very nice. I also like this one by Mary Frye
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/do-not-stand-at-my-grave-and-weep/
tonyb
serf and Tony
condolences
hope you don’t get a movement of “concerned” advocates trying to stop kids from playing the dangerous game of Cricket
like we have here with the football
(round football too, if you can believe it)
Thank you for the post Judith and, as ever, for hosting such a great blog. There are of course disagreements here but there is far less of the toxic vitriol that now infests the comments at WUWT. I pretty much gave up there after I was condemned as a ‘well-known and notorious alarmist’ after suggesting that the sceptical view presented in one post was possibly over-egging the pudding slightly. I found that amusing but also depressing – there are plenty of nutters on the sceptical side as well as among the alarmists.
Of course Climategate changed everything. Anyone on either side of the hill who can’t see that must have their head in the sand. Before I read the emails I was suspicious of both the quality of the science and the motivations of some of the ex-CND types who were shouting about an oncoming catastrophe. The emails confirmed that appallingly bad science was being done, and that at least one group of scientists were furiously gaming the system. It is a sad indictment of human nature that the scientific community as a whole didn’t turn on them immediately. I suppose the reason is mainly that there is plenty of similar dirty linen in other disciplines too. So, I suppose Climategate destroyed my naivety about how principled and trustworthy scientists in general are. On reflection, it’s probably a good thing the scales have dropped from my eyes.
Prof. Curry,
I was also dismayed about the stolen Climate emails. At the time, I had been lurking at Climate Audit and enjoyed McIntyre’s methodical approach (I learned about R statistics which I am currently learning). Truly the best thing that came out of this is that scientists are being more open about how they are approaching their research. I just took a part of a Coursera on-line R statistics course called “Reproducibile Research” which was all about including code and data in one’s results. Not only does it make research more transparent but it forces one to be more organized (Before climategate, my suspicion about Mann’s reluctance to publish his code had always been that coding can be sloppy and maybe he was just too embarrased.)
Anyway, I appreciate the informative essays you have posted over the years. I enjoyed especially the discussion on energy sources by Planning Engineer and I have more hope for the future.
Rose
Pingback: The Liberty Herald – Potpourri
‘Transparency has improved substantially. Journals and funding agencies now expect data to be made publicly available, along with metadata. ‘
Sadly some make no effrort to ensure it is , and sadly some do not expect data to be made publicly available, along with metadata at all.
To this day its still an area where claiming ‘the dog eat my data ‘ is consider an acceptable approach to be use by professionals.
In their pursuit of standards that would otherwise be totally unacceptable for an undergraduate handing in an essay.
The main point is the by over weighting the importance of CG with gratitidous “shock” added is it ignores, minimizes and mitigates all of the obvious in plain sight politically motivated corruption associated to climate “science”;
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/03/streisand-v-inhofe-hollywood-outraged-that-inhofe-singled-out-singers-role-in-promoting-global-warming-but-streisand-admits-i-and-others-have-spent-countless-millions-on-this-issue/
Right, 1989 that in itself is no where the beginning of leftist patronage and cronyism.
Thank you for the update with a copy of the email from the student that originally motivated your posting of “An Open Letter.”
The relationship a research mentor has with talented students provide motivation for the final solution to Climategate emails.
My entire research career has been an attempt to communicate to the public the insight that my research mentor – the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda -received while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima one day in August 1945:
“The sight before my eyes was just like the end of the world, but I also felt that the beginning of the world may have been just like this.”
[See last sentence at bottom of page 2 of P.K.Kuroda’s book. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHEMICAL EKEMENTS and the OKLO PHENOMENON (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982, 165 pages)].
Even today I am looking for someone to translate a paper that was written by an admirer of Professor Kuroda in Hungarian language and dedicated to his memory in 2013. Its title:
„The nuclear chemist who foresaw the past. Paul Kazuo Kuroda and the Oklo paleoreactors”.
Here is a link to the 2013 Hungarian article, “A Nuclear Chemist Who Foresaw the Past: Paul Kazuo Kuroda and the Oklo Paleoreactors”
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/A_nuclear_chemist_who_foresaw_the_past_Paul_Kazuo_Kuroda.pdf
Suggestions would be appreciated for obtaining an English translation of the article.
Willis,
you are entirely correct about the obtuseness of the inquiries and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. And yes, the inquiries are entirely at fault in failing to carry out proper investigations.
Also, let me clarify my position on paleo in the emails. While Mosher and I have talked at length about this and agree on the substance, I also agree with your response. My point and frustration was that there was virtually nothing in the emails about CRUTEM (or similar indices) and thus nobody could reasonably expect any email content to undercut these records. On the other hand, there were numerous emails about (for example) criticism of Santer et al that did not relate to “paleo”, but was an issue taken up by Climate Audit. So this isn’t “paleo”, but it’s not CRUTEM. Mosher could have phrased the point more precisely and I should have parsed my endorsement more carefully.
On the other hand, I also think that it’s also correct to say that the majority of the most contentious emails related to the Hockey Stick, paleo and the IPCC handling of the disputes: hide the decline, delete all emails, dilute the message, fodder to skeptics, dirty laundry, etc.
Let me try to re-phrase my main point. Anyone with any experience in dealing with the climate industry knows or ought to know the following: if your criticism mixes some weak points with your strong points, all you will hear about in the response are the weak points. In my opinion, many “skeptics” are prone to over-editorialize (or go a “bridge too far”) and this facilitates responses from opponents that evade the strongest points. If you want your strongest points to be heard, you sometimes have to bite your tongue on other points.
While very little in the emails pertained to CRUTEM, many “skeptics” coatracked their prior concerns about temperature data onto Climategate. This is very evident in, for example, the petitions for reconsideration to the EPA, where Climategate is mentioned, but temperature data issues quickly coatracked.
By introducing issues mostly unrelated to the emails, this gave unsympathetic inquiries an opportunity to mostly evade the tougher issues and run the clock on temperature data. You see this in both Muir Russell and the EPA. Although I had been perhaps the most prominent critic of the Climategate correspondents, my issues are almost totally ignored, while there’s lots on CRUTEM and temperature data.
You are correct that the primary failure for the investigations failure to investigate rests with the investigations themselves. However, to the extent that skeptics coatracked CRUTEM disputes that were almost entirely unconnected with the emails into Climategate submissions, they helped antagonistic investigations to evade the tougher issues.
==> ” if your criticism mixes some weak points with your strong points, all you will hear about in the response are the weak points.
Unintentional irony strikes again!
The air of superiority. Trace gases.
Steve’s right about how careful we must be.
I don’t think Joshua gets it so an example might be in order.
In climategate, for example, people had a choice of what to focus on.
Instead they threw up every conceivable issue.
1. Jones, mail to warwick hughes about not sharing data
2. mr santer Meet me in the alley
3. Bad practices: harry read me.
4. FOIA and Ar4
faced with those 4, any good defender will focus on the least important and defend that. Say #3. A really good defense against one of the weakest points. In the mean time issue 4 gets ignored or short shrift.
In the end you write a report saying ‘we found no issue with #3’ and you just never address the other issues. Client is exonerated.
Thats a cartoon version of what happens when you try to over charge a case rather than build a focused case.
Its also the reason why on nov 19th two days over getting all the mails
I told Andrew Revkin to follow the FOIA. because in my opinion after reading all the mails, the strongest case could be made by focusing on that. Everything else is a distraction. Of course in the first two weeks all manner of crap got spewed, especially by Palin.
on one side you had skeptics trying to coatrack every issue onto climategate. you had them screaming murder when the crime was more like a serious misdemeanor. On the other side, it was all jay walking.
Looking at it practically I merely note that the skeptics did themselves no favours by throwing a spaggetti bowl full of charges against the wall in the hopes that it all would stick. Quite logically the other side picked some of the weakest cases to counter attack.
Mosh,
I just read the FOIA requests from CRU as described on wiki and I have some questions.
It seems that the original requests were made by Steve McIntyre and at first Jones complied but later refused. Later David Holland made requests for Ar4 and IPCC stuff from Briffa and the university refused. After some convoluted legal stuff it was found the statue of limitations had run out.
In both cases what would have happened legally? Anyone going to jail? Most importantly what was so damming about this information that release was refused. In other words was this a tempest in a teapot or was the release of this information really going to mess with Mann and the IPCC?
Many thanks for that clarification, Stephen, and my thanks also to Mosh for raising a most interesting issue.
My best to you both,
w.
These are interesting points in regard to CG in general Steve. The historiography in itself isn’t the issue here but the general weight of importance placed on by the host and followed up in so many weak skeptical quarters;
“The net effect of all this is that my ‘academic career advancement’ in terms of professional recognition, climbing the administrative ladder, etc. has been pretty much halted. I’ve exchanged academic advancement that now seems to be of dubious advantage to me for a much more interesting and influential existence that that feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.
Bottom line: Climategate was career changing for me; I’ll let history decide if this was for better or worse (if history even cares).”
I can just imagine Joshua and Michael hawking politically correct history books in their later years. Regardless of all that there has been 40+ years global central planning agenda long before CG was ever coined that seems to go to the discount rack with such yodeling over CG personal significance which is far more a symptom of what is wrong with partisan motivated “science” than the disease itself. If Dr. Curry is to fess up to “science integrity” she might try to recall the entire theatrical exercise of the green movement in academia at least from 1970 on. She was there for much of it and from all that I’ve read a willing member. CG is just one revealing event with many facets but rather trivial to the broader, authoritarian in nature history of the climate movement.
This is the Rudolf Hess syndrome, he flew the plane out of Germany and thought he was to be a hero at least to where he was flying. Instead he spent about 50 years in solitary confinement until he died. While the blog tends to always praise our host (many imagined skeptics at least) or be hated by warming extremists that isn’t the final judgement. It starts with looking at the whole climate agenda story and all the dots connected. The idea that CG is the defining event of the climate culture war is foolish at best. The stakes for the world in the would-be Climate Soviet were/are a good deal higher then discussed by our host and certainly per-dated CG by at least 40+ years. Harping on CG as so many skeptics, technical skeptics in particular, do deserves some retrospect.
I’m glad for the CG synopsis but it’s largely a digression in how the host weights the event and is reinforced by many of the comments on the board (I’m considering many “skeptics” here). Spare me if CG was either “shocking” or life changing, that’s beyond naive.
“Scientific American: Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on her Colleagues (Nov 2010)” – JC
Of course!. Judith will never let this one go.
A rather uncontroversial (even dull) piece, spiced up with some editorialising in the headline.
But a nice piece of reverse editorialisng by Judith and she makes it central piece in her construction of a new persona – ‘oppressed scientist’.
Playing the victim card never gets old, and it is a mainstay of climate “skepticism.”
But notice that Judith doesn’t let being a victim get in the way of calling other people “deniers.”
Joshua and Michael’s comments would seem to indicate that the do not visit the unScientific American site. It is a place of almost pure propaganda regarding the cAGW. The writers there regularily bash Judith and ban those who point out where their conclusions are not scientifically valid.
victims are silent for years.. see the cosby case.
When judith speaks out it is because she doesnt want to be a victim.
When a woman reports rape Joshua you dont say she is playing the victim card.
When someone whines about being called a “denier,” and then turns around and calls other people “deniers,” I call that playing the victim card.
Playing the victim is endemic in the climate wars. Both sides do it. It’s a convenient form of identity politics. They paint the other side as the insensitive Goliaths and themselves as the poor sensitive Davids.
I think that if Judith’s career aspirations have been held back because she simply has expressed a minority view on the climate, that is potentially a serious matter. But it gets tricky because there is a reasonable basis for evaluating someone’s science on the basis of perceived incompetence. Both sides do that also. “Skeptics” devalue an entire sector of the scientific community on a regular basis. They personalize the scientific discussion and demean and name-call and cast aspersions and attribute motives assign guilt by association on a regular basis. It happens on this blog, and Judith not only fails to explicitly criticize that behavior from “skeptics,” she often cultivates that very behavior (e.g., look at her posts about Steyn vs. Mann).
I don’t think that being called a “denier” is on a parallel with getting raped.
I think that if she has a case to make about being a victims w/r/t to her career, then she should lay out her case in a systematic and explicit manner so it can be evaluated. People make such claims all the time, and the claims are infused with subjectivity.
And in the meantime, when Judith complains about being called a “denier” but actively associates with wide-spread name-calling, and in addition participates in the name-calling herself, then I am generally inclined to view her as a victim card player.
Perhaps she is truly a victim here. Let her make the case rather than play to a partisan crowd with vague accusations that imply that a phenomenon of victimhood is widespread.
Joshua nice try
One Judith isn’t whining
Two she is not painting herself as David
Three asking her to name names is a typical male response to violence against women.
Before Judith ever went public With any of this her her husband and I had some nice chats about this. Nothing is improved by naming names.
I have a black friend who says he was held back
By racism. I doubt that. I want names places etc.
Of course he is making a counterfactual claim so it’s hard to test. The point is I will probably give him the benefit of the doubt. With Judith I do the same thing.
Long ago she merely invited Mcintyre to speak and the institution came down on her.
I know how that works so the onus shifts.
I want to see proof that she wasn’t negatively impacted
I am wondering what kind of career advancement and awards Dr. Curry expects to receive. My opinion is that scientists usually advance by producing widely influential and or groundbreaking work. What has Dr. Curry done in the past 5 years that is groundbreaking and or widely influential? I guess they suggestion that the uncertainty monster has nullified the consensus view is new, but it definitely hasn’t been influential.
Joseph, “What has Dr. Curry done in the past 5 years that is groundbreaking and or widely influential?”
Nothing as widely influential as this.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/Comic_RollerCoaster_610.jpg
Or even this
http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/images/Ant5706.jpg
Joseph, what have you done in the past 5 years that is groundbreaking and or widely influential?
Phat, I am not sure why that is relevant. But I am not saying that Dr. Curry hasn’t had a solid career to date. But there is a ceiling in terms of advancement for anyone and unless more people recognize the importance of her work, she may have reached that ceiling.
==> “One Judith isn’t whining”
I say tomato, you say tomahto.
==> “Two she is not painting herself as David”
You say tomahto, I say tomato.
==> “Three asking her to name names is a typical male response to violence against women.”
IMO, this situation isn’t analogous to responding to women talking about violence committed against them. I think that continuing to employ that rhetoric is cynical and exploitative of a serious social problem – like exploiting the social problem of bullying by calling people who write blog comments (which have no real impact on anyone’s life) bullies, or cynically exploiting the social problem of holocaust denial by hand-wringing about being called a “climate denier,” or exploiting the problem of starving children by implying that if only we’d stop advocating for alternative energy, the network of social problems that cause starvation would suddenly disappear.
==> “Before Judith ever went public With any of this her her husband and I had some nice chats about this.”
Other than name-dropping, I fail to see the relevance.
==> “Nothing is improved by naming names”
This gets a bit tricky. It is valid for a supervisor to limit an academic’s career advancement if that academic produces poor quality work. It is not valid for a supervisor to limit an academic’s career advancement simply because he/she doesn’t like the political implications of that academic’s work.
Sometimes it might be difficult to determine the one from the other – but in this case Judith is saying that the situation is clear cut. In such a clear cut situation, we have a supervisor, or a group of supervisors who are acting unprofessionally and damaging others. In such a case, I would say it would be clear improvement to have those people evaluated openly, and held accountable for their irresponsible actions. By not “naming-name,” Judith would be, implicitly, enabling their lack of accountability. Seems that from Judith’s argument, she has nothing to lose at this point. .
Joshua, Fanboy and Michael are the old women walking around Red Square holding pictures of Stalin. Their time is close to up, the age of full Greenshirt stupid is closing and I just don’t see the millennial generation maintaining the dogmatism of the boomers. Stick a fork in it, 2006 was the peak and almost pointless at that.
Like I say, she can call Inhofe and tell him the names of the people who are blocking her career path, and she can tell him the names of all the young climate scientists who have told her they are afraid to speak up because these nasty people will fire them.
Inhofe will get all those bad people fired.
And all the sudden, they don’t want this outcome. This is very odd. It’s almost like they just want to cast aspersions.
Smear smear, smear smear, oh what a joy it is.
==> “Like I say, she can call Inhofe and tell him the names of the people who are blocking her career path, ”
Indeed. As one of the few advocates for integrity, you’d think that she’d feel a moral responsibility for doing so. These neo-McCarthyites need to be exposed and dealt with appropriately.
Just to recap, you and JCH think Judith should stop addressing the science and instead take action to ruin the careers of the people who she has criticized- Curry’s criticism in this case being that these people didn’t address the science but instead attempted to ruin her career.
My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that Curry doesn’t want to join you. She wants to fight you.
But you can dream.
Joshie’s unintentional irony strikes again.
They either exist and deserve to be fired, or they don’t exist. There’s no middle. She does not get to ruin their reputations by innuendo.
If scientists is saying privately that he/she cannot speak up because so and so and will fire them, then so and so needs to go. They need to have their career ruined because that would constitute being an absolutely horrible administrator.
She does not get to smear with no accountability. Make the accusation, back it up. Otherwise, it’s ruining the reputation of somebody with a smear.
Have the decency to give them their day at an Inhofe hearing.
Like weeds, you pull one out and another two take its place.
==> “Just to recap, you and JCH think Judith should stop addressing the science and instead take action to ruin the careers of the people who she has criticized- Curry’s criticism in this case being that these people didn’t address the science but instead attempted to ruin her career.
My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that Curry doesn’t want to join you. She wants to fight you.
But you can dream.”
I can ‘t speak for JCH.
I don’t think that calling out people who have irresponsibly block her career advancement, or who irresponsibly block the production of valid science from others, would be mutually exclusive from her addressing the science.
And Judith spends quite a bit of time not addressing the science directly, and instead advocating for her own view w/r/t the political and policy implications of climate science (although she uses some sort of magical imbalance fairy to dust her own advocacy with pixie dust).
Judith wants to fight me? An anonymous blog troll? She wants to fight Joshie? As brandon might say – “that makes no sense.”
Judith has a habit of making these broad, and quite serious, allegations of perfidy on the part of others, broad enough to identify the groups she refers to, but lacking the detail to identify those she actually accuses, and in so doing smearing the innocent who are readily identified as being in the group .
We had it with her ‘cabal” of high ranking IPCC scientists, and more lately with her allegations of being blocked in her career.
I suspect that scientific colleagues are fed-up to back teeth with wearing her broad brush smears and innuendo, while rather hypocritically, claiming the moral high ground for herself on scientific integrity.
Judith, IMHO, fails to heed that rather good advice to ‘disagree without being disagreeable’.
But there is a history there….
Michael, Josh and JCH miss an important point, naming her critics won’t ruin their careers in climate science, it will enhance it. Nobody who pulled of the absurd hit on Pilke at FiveThirtyEight minded seeing their names attached to the smear job. None lost their careers.
Heck, even Gleick and Lewandowski are “respected” members of the warm.
Show us, JCH, the list of climate scientists who lost their jobs after being outed for seeking the firing of journal editors who dared to publish contradictory studies.
I can’t speak for Curry, but again My guess is she can’t stand your tactics. She’d rather point out why you’re wrong than whine about seeing contrary thoughts in print and demand heads for criticism.
In short she a classical liberal – one who has enough confidence in her work to accept that the answer to asinine speech is more speech. And by the way, she’s winning.
Jeffn | December 3, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
“Michael, Josh and JCH miss an important point, naming her critics won’t ruin their careers in climate science, it will enhance it…”
Then there is no reason not to….
On a related point, has Judith’s profile ever been higher than it is now?
Steyn reposted his column about Climategate in honor of the anniversary:
http://www.steynonline.com/6692/climategate-five-years-on
No wonder it’s raining in California – we’re witnessing the development of an extremely occluded mid-latitude cyclonic enhanced precipitable, deep inter-tropical convergence surging with a complex occluded low inner structure.
Is that the same as saying it’s raining like hell? I’m happy we have power. It must be all those subsidized solar panels chugging away…
Judith,
I am a fan of yours. Not because you have ‘figured’ anything out but that you are willing to listen and think. It is a hard thing to examine oneself and ask questions of Dogma. You did. You do not care what the truth is only the pursuit of it and in my mind that is science.
The world is too interested in right or wrong, all to often the truth is a blend of the two.
I think it is also important that the thing that most skeptics were skeptical of was not whether the earth was warming, but the extremes that poured out of the community of scientists that advocated a ‘we are all gonna die’ attitude. I have cared and studied the science of ‘climate change’ for close to twenty years now and the more I learn the less I am concerned about the amount that should occur, occurring.
Perhaps something will happen to change my mind and I will rue the day I wrote this. It may happen and those that fought so hard will be vindicated. But based on my current understanding I doubt this.
Thank you for attempting to be reasonable. It is difficult to do.
Thank you, Professor Curry, for staling the Climate Change Bandwagon until Senator Inhofe could identify the “Hollywood scientist” behind this movement.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/03/streisand-v-inhofe-hollywood-outraged-that-inhofe-singled-out-singers-role-in-promoting-global-warming-but-streisand-admits-i-and-others-have-spent-countless-millions-on-this-issue/
Other than the Norfolk police having said so, is there any evidence that any law was broken in the release of the CG emails?
Under English law,the Computer Misuse Act applies to unauthorised access to a computer. So far as I can tell, anybody given root access by their employer has implicitly been authorised to access anything on the machine (unless instructed otherwise). So, if such a person accessed data on the machine, even via external access, no offence would have been committed.
English universities are “Public Authorities” under English law and therefor information generated and received by their academic staff in the course of their work is subject to FOI. I have never heard of the release of information subject to FOI being illegal. (It might be a disciplinary issue but that is not the same thing.) So the release of the information, if legal obtained, would not have been an offence, so far as I can see.
When thinking about the legacy of “Climategate”, this comic seems to add a bit a dark and witty humor to Judith’s journey, for those who missed it:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/heretic_scr.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1297502386297
Well said by Victor Davis Hanson,
“Take also global warming — for Secretary of State John Kerry, the world’s greatest challenge. Once the planet did not heat up in the last 18 years, and once the ice of the polar caps did not melt away, global warming begat climate change. The new nomenclature was a clever effort to link all occasional weather extremities to some underlying and fundamental climate disruption. Brilliant though the strategy was — the opposites of cold/hot, drought/deluges, and calm/storms could now all be used as proof of permanent climate change — global warming finally was hoist on its own petard: If it caused everything, then it caused nothing.
So, in the end, what was global warming? It seems to have grown up largely as a late-20th-century critique of global-market capitalism by elites who had done so well by it that they had won the luxury of caricaturing the very source of their privilege. Global warming proved a near secular religion that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning among mostly secular Western grandees. In reality, the global-warming creed had scant effect on the lifestyles of the high priests who promulgated it. Al Gore did not cut back on his jet-fueled and lucrative proselytizing. Obama did not become the first president who, on principle, traveled with a reduced and green entourage. Solyndra did not run a model transparent company as proof of the nobility of the cause. As in the case of illegal immigration, the losers from the global-warming fad are the working and middle classes, who do not have the capital to be unharmed by the restrictions on cheap, carbon-based fuels.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393713/liberalism-ruins-victor-davis-hanson
The type of people who like to giggle at creationists had their own flat-earth moment when they looked at the original hockey-stick and did NOT fall down laughing…or ROFL, as the type of people who giggle at creationists would express it.
The fact that the hockey-stick was taken seriously by those best in a position to appreciate its absurdity indicated that climate alarmism was indeed just the old collectivist urge looking for a new home.
The “solutions” we have seen implemented since do more than indicate. Hard to miss a herd of white elephants rampaging through your economy, no matter how selective your vision.
This is where the Big Tobacco comparisons really fall apart. While it would be rare to see an anti-smoking activist smoking, our Green Betters think nothing of extracting substantial personal benefits from the industrial culture they condemn or of advocating for stupendous up-front waste to produce their tiny and dubious green gains. Membership of the klimatariat has privileges.
We may no longer have Borgia popes or commissars with weekend dachas…but we’ve got something awfully like it.
You hit the nail on the head!
mosomoso –
In complete agreement. I have analyzed data and the associated graphs my entire career. It took me about 30 seconds to conclude that the HS was bogus. I almost think that it was counter-productive for Steve and Ross to spend so much effort taking it apart bit by bit. A lot of laughter might have been more effective.
Mosomoso +1 and very well put! Splicing disparate time series data achieves nothing from a descriptive nor predictive POV.
1+, it’s still best to ignore the quibbling nonsense of the collectivist moon bats of Joshua, Fanboy or the dower Michael but a good post none-the-less.
cwon,
“dower”
What??
Michael I think he meant dour meaning grim and stubborn but maybe he was thinking of dowager? ;)
downer?
It could even be dowser since he seems to be always tipping cold water on sceptical arguments.
I think dipsh*t was the descriptor he had in mind.
The word I was grasping at in haste was “dour” which sums up Michael to be sure; “obstinate,gloomy,sullen” etc. etc.
Bob, you are right, of course, about the hipocricy of the elite left. Unfortunately, the people will forgive a hero everything and a scoundrel nothing. The definition of a hero being, in this case, someone who reflects your own values. Thus, the cycle will never end.
Does the legacy of Climategate include some doubt about how accurately global temperatures can be measured? Not at the BBC, where David Shukman claims that 2014 is heading to be the warmest year on record, saying in justification: “The provisional record for 2014 is only slightly higher than for the previous record year of 2010 – one-hundredth of a degree.” I commented that no one can accurately measure global temps to tenth of a degree, never mind a hundreth.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816
Say here’s the latest weather report from the BOM at the BBC.
No candidates for “So you think you can dance?” USA among that group.
No, Faustino, and the costumes aren’t that hot either, though
yer could say that the girls’ costumes seem ter be embellished
with some sorta’ hockey stick temperature projection !
hockey stick shaft symbols
Pingback: The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later (Climate Etc.) | Uma (in)certa antropologia
Speaking of emails, “the most transparent administration in history” as they once promised;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/03/obama-administration-refuses-to-release-documents-about-white-house-role-in-irs-scandal/
November 2014 if the Fifth Anniversary of Climategate, a month for global warming deniers and skeptics to celebrate. But let’s face it, who else remembers or even cares.To keep the hacking of those climate science e-mails fresh in the public mind, November could be designated National Climategate Awareness Month by an organization such as Heartland
If this suggestion seems silly, just consider we already have National Honey Month, National Ice Cream Month, and National Zombie Awarness Month (I’m not kidding, look it up).
Ideally, National Climategate Awareness Month would coincide with National CyberSecurity Awarness Month, but the later doesn’t take place in November, so that spoils that.
Professor Curry,
This
“As far as I know, there are no outstanding FOIA requests for data (other than possibly some of Mann’s HS data and documentation)”
doesn’t cover all the hidden items asked for …Briffa’s take-home Wahl correspondence attachment, for an example, remains to be seen.
A fan of *MORE* discourse | December 3, 2014 at 6:41 am |
“So many”? Name five. And don’t bother starting with people or organizations objecting to the crap science behind secondhand smoke, such as Fred Singer. He was 100% correct about the shoddy research used by the EPA regarding, not tobacco use, but secondhand smoke. Here’s Fred himself on the subject …
Anyhow, I await your list of five institutions and individuals who once “spread anti-scientific tobacco-doubt” and now “aggressively spread anti-scientific climate-doubt.” But like I said, don’t bother me with people questioning the secondhand smoke nonsense. That’s long been known to be bogus.
w.
Heartland, Cato and Marshall come to mind immediately, and those are the big three. Name three equivalent ones that didn’t take the wrong side with tobacco.
Cites? As far as I know, Heartland only weighed in on the bogus science regarding secondhand smoke. The Cato folks talk about things like the curious paradox that smoking cigarettes actually reduces health costs, and that the states make millions from tobacco taxes, but AFAIK don’t say tobacco doesn’t cause cancer … of the three, the Marshall Institute is the only one that I know of that used to claim that tobacco didn’t cause cancer … and they’re not saying that now. But if you have cites saying otherwise, bring them on.
Look, my mom smoked her whole life and died of lung cancer, so I’m no fool on this question. But like many people, I object to the bogus “scientific” claims that people put out there, like the idea that smoking is a net cost to the health system, or the idea that there is a scientific case that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Somehow when it comes to tobacco, people seem to lose all scientific sense, and believe anything.
Finally, the whole argument is a red herring. Either Heartland is right or wrong about climate change, and that has NOTHING TO DO with whatever they might say about tobacco. It’s like saying “You must be right about climate change because you supported Hilary Clinton” … one has nothing to do with the other.
w.
“The Cato folks talk about things like the curious paradox that smoking cigarettes actually reduces health costs..”
Really?
Sounds like BS, rather than a paradox.
Michael: Sounds like BS, rather than a paradox.
Strictly speaking, “paradox” might be the wrong word. But by living longer, non-smokers consume a lot more health care resources than smokers.
Can you meet Willis Eschenbach’s challenge? Name 5 (not to mention “many”) that substantiate FOMD’s claim.
Michael, I think the point is that more tax is taken from the sale of tobacco then is spent on the health consequences attributed to it.
Agnostic | December 4, 2014 at 2:53 am |
Thanks, Agnostic, but that’s not the issue. As Matt Marler says, the issue is that smokers die younger, and there’s not much that we can do for lung cancer. For example, they just told my mom to go home and die … sad, but also cheap.
But for many diseases of old age, we spend thousands or hundreds of thousands on the other diseases of the elderly. Not only that, but non-smokers live longer than smokers and consume more resources for that reason as well.
As a result, smokers save the health system money … curious, huh?
w.
@willis:
Oh I see. LOL. Humanity self-culling.
Matthew,
That’s a complete furphy, if that is what Willis is trying to say.
It’s been oft-claimed by those with an axe to grind, but it’s bollocks.
Most health-related costs occur around the time death, regardless of age.
There has a been a change to living longer with chronic diseases, but smoking is one of the contributors to that – not all smokers drop dead from MI or Ca, some live a long time with chronic respiratory disease, the sequelae of stroke, or vascular disease.
Oh, I see Willis has chimed in and that is his explanation.
It’s BS.
Not even very good BS.
Michael | December 4, 2014 at 3:19 am |
Gotta say, I do love a man who makes a well reasoned, well cited, logical argument …
Here’s the lifetime costs for smokers and non-smokers:
Source
You can find other sources if you wish. The facts are well known.
w.
Here’s the well-known bastion of conservatives, the Huffington Post, saying the same thing. Smokers cost the health system less than non-smokers.
w.
Smokers cost society less money than non-smokers because smokers don’t live as long. But that doesn’t get at the larger problem, which is retirees costs society and workers foot the bill. If people would kill themselves at age 65, the savings to society would be enormous.
Oh My God, I forgot a lot of regulars here at ClimateEtc are old timers. Please don’t commit suicide. You have earned your retirement. Enjoy it !
Willis,
These studies ignore any contribution made by people post-retirement in off-setting health-care costs.
And instead of looking at the total costs for health, see what happens when you express it as $/person/year.
For an even starker comparison look at health care costs for a smoker up to death, compared to a non-smoker to the same age.
Smoking costs.
Matthew Marler, regarding the challenge to find five, can you even think of two other equally well known skeptical organizations, period? Maybe GWPF in the UK, but regarding smoking, the UK had no tobacco lobby to combat the science, and industry has less political influence anyway because they can’t just send money to politicians.
Jim D: Matthew Marler, regarding the challenge to find five, can you even think of two other equally well known skeptical organizations, period?
You need to start over by rereading the baseless assertion by FOMD that Willis Eschenbach responded to. You are not claiming, I hope, that FOMD’s baseless assertion is in fact correct?
Michael:
Can you provide a source for this assertion?
Willis, non-smokers greatly outnumber smokers and detest second-hand smoke, which is why smoking has been banned in most public places. Regardless of health issues, people who don’t smoke shouldn’t have to breath tobacco smoke. Smokers who disagree are psychopaths because they don’t care if their behavior offends or harms others. I hope you aren’t a psychopath yourself, but if you are defending second-hand smoke, I suspect you may be one.
Thanks, Max. I detest second-hand car exhaust, of which there is much, much more than second-hand cigarette smoke. Does that mean you shouldn’t drive a car?
Now, I happen to agree with the smoking bans in bars and restaurants, because I’m a musician, and I don’t like breathing the cigarette smoke indoors hour after hour any more than I like breathing car exhaust outdoors.
So no, I’m not defending second-hand smoke, I don’t like it either. What I am saying is that the case that second-hand smoke causes cancer is based on shabby, politically directed science. The studies were flawed, and the EPA had to change its own rules to get the ban passed. No surprise, it’s the EPA, home of the world’s crappiest and most politicized “science”.
What I am also saying is that people who bust Fred Singer or Heartland for pointing out underhanded deceptive science is missing the point if they think it’s about tobacco. Read Fred’s post I linked above.
Finally, what I’m saying is that the tobacco = climate claim is nothing but a red herring dreamed up to distract people from how bad the “science” of climate science actually is, by trying to discredit the messenger. It’s a pathetic ad hominem attack that is a sure sign of the weakness of the scientific arguments of those making that attack.
Hope that makes it clearer,
w.
Willis, you don’t know second-hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer, but by claiming the science is flawed, you imply you believe it doesn’t. Do you suspect it causes cancer?
I agree with you about mv exhaust, but I find most of it (except diesel) less objectionable than tobacco and fireplace smoke.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | December 4, 2014 at 3:58 am |
No, you inferred incorrectly that I believe it. I implied nothing of the sort. I said the science was badly flawed. I generally say exactly what I mean in a straightforward manner, and make little attempt to be subtle … sometimes to my disadvantage, I’ll admit. In any case, I said nothing about what I believe.
Do I suspect second-hand smoke “causes” cancer? Well, the science was unable to demonstrate that it does, so that’s where I stand on the question—it’s undecided. My best guess is that it likely will stay undecided, because if there is an effect, it’s obviously so small that it’s down in the noise and at present it can’t be detected.
w.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist: I agree with you about mv exhaust, but I find most of it (except diesel) less objectionable than tobacco and fireplace smoke.
The claim supporting the smoking bans was not that tobacco smoke was “objectionable” but that it was a public health hazard. That claim had little to no evidence to back it up. Even an elected government ought to be required to make a strong case when enacting new restrictions on individuals’ freedom to choose, even when claiming a public health interest. What the saccharin example, aspartame example, CO2 example, and second-hand-smoke example have in common is that the case for regulation is weak or non-existent.
I see lots of mini-cooling periods in Rob’s woodfortrees plot. I counted 14 of ’em between 1980 and 2015, which means it’s cooling a lot. Obviously this plot suggests “a lack of warming,” and “even cooling” if the warm spells are left out.
The last post was in response to Max OK
“The suggestion of a lack of warming – or even cooling – for 20 to 40 years from 2002 was made well before 2013.”
______
Playing it safe by being wishy-washy.
I can do that. Here’s what I will suggest: a lack of cooling – or even warming – for the next 20 to 40 years, more or less, unless temperature stays the same, maybe. I reserve the right to revise this suggestion at any time.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist: Playing it safe by being wishy-washy.
It’s an acknowledgement of the large amount of ignorance about important topics. Anybody who is not “wishy-washy” in prognostications of the future is ignoring the large amount of evidence that there are important known unknowns.
It is coming up 11 years since the death of one of the early skeptics John Daly an Australian engineer.
At his blog in the 1980’s Still Waiting For Greenhouse http://www.john-daly.com, he fought the good fight exposing the lack of openness in the temperature claims of the global warming claimants.
He also researched the claims of extensive sea level rise using early sea level markers and readings from the 1800’s.
He authored a book The greenhouse trap: Why the greenhouse effect will not end life on earth, published in 1989 by Bantam Books.
I followed his blog from that time and was awed at his tenacity and commitment to open science and transparency.
Why tree rings cannot be a hockey stick for global temperature.
John Daly was a knight of enlightenment take no mann’s word
as evidence.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Thanks for posting the article Beth.
This brings back why I followed John.
His in depth analysis, breadth of scope and attention to detail were astonishing.
How did he find the time and energy to do this work year after year?
> People starting to ask about motive for massive IPCC deception,
More general, and more simple, are questions about massive built-in / ineradicable alarmist bias in all politically-financed climate science, given the massive political inmplications that alarmism introduces.
Thanks for linking to these three overview articles on the legacy of Climategate. As for “most of the ‘action’ on the warm side has switched to twitter” – well, it is less likely to lose an argument on but 140 letter messages. And anything not well rounded can be explained away later with that brevity. I have followed this discussion since the Leipzig Declaration back in the nineties and I must say that so far models have been “treading water”. If any other area of human research (ok, excepting fusion, which is always fifty years from now) took fifteen years to yield more indecisive than decisive results, academe would begin to wonder. Not so here. All that has happened is to shun calling anything warming, but “change”. Remembering Ivar Glaeser on the climate religion I think we have moved from a god anyone could “find” to a pantheism where he (?) is “just everywhere” and so …
So 84% of Democrats trust corrupt science, whereas only 26% of Republicans do.
I think it’s more a question of what they think they can get out of the corruption.
Keep up the great work Judith, history will prove you and other skeptics to have taken the high/scientific road, and those that executed the climate inquisition will be relegated to the chapter warning future generations of the dangers of the politicization of science, right after Eugenics and the horrors that it wrought. One note that you may want to also highlight is the obvious deceit perpetrated by one of the leading Climate “scientists” Al Gore’s “friend” Lonnie Thompson. In the climategate e-mails it is made pretty apparent that Mt Kilimanjaro’s glacier isn’t melting, and that it is disappearing due to sublimation. The glacier is at 19,730 ft, well above the freeze line, and temperatures never get above freezing. This is discussed in the e-mails, and yet for years this fact was never addressed. To this day I don’t believe any of the groups that exploited the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier have changed their story. Lastly, I would encourage you and all your listeners to get back to the basics. Climatescience is a “science,” and science has a defined method. If CO2 and man are causing climate change, then the proof is pretty simple. The null is “man is not causing climate/temperature change (note the only mechanism defined for man to cause climate change is through heat trapping CO2, so I don’t see how CO2 trapping heat can cause cooling, but that is another issue). It is claimed that man has changed the CO2 balance over the past 150 years, but mostly over the past 50 years. The question then becomes “is the climate/temperature change statistically different over the past 150 and 50 years vs the past 14,000 years? That simple study can be done in every classroom in America, and yet it isn’t. That is step #1 in proving the AGW theory, and yet our schools don’t even do the basics, we get caught up infighting over the details, which works to the supporters of AGW favor. The other testable problems are the pH of the oceans. We know the volume of the oceans, we know the carbon burned by man, it that enough to change the pH of the oceans, and has the pH of the oceans changed in any statistically significant way? And finally, the oceans are warming, visible light warms the oceans not IR at 15micrometers. Daytime temperatures are also increasing, also due to visible light, not the 15 micrometers of CO2 absorption. If CO2 were the cause you would see a narrowing of the spread between day and night temperature, and more heat gets trapped at night. Those are pretty easy to understand concepts, and yet I don’t see anyone out there just discussing the basics. Once again, just test the published ice core data over the past 14k years (post ice age), it totally debunks the AGW theory using 7th grade statistics. Every high school science class should be doing that test.
BTW, I wrote the comment above before reading the mentioned post over on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/
Considering the witch hunt vocabulary like “heritic” and “denier” used by the IPCC and its supporters, I don’t think a review of history was unwarranted. IMHO Dr Ball was right on with his comments. What science do the supporters have? The data doesn’t even support the basics of their theory. Only people trying to protect a lie protest as much as the AGW crowd, and that is why they attacked Dr Ball in the manner that they did, the truth simply hurts, and they won’t like to have to face the fact that the are being written into the history books right next to some pretty despicable characters. Just because the truth hurts doesn’t mean we should stop people from expressing it.
Dr.Curry, I was one of the first to wish you good luck when you started this blog several years ago. I still read your blogs but stopped to read the comments because it reminds me of a hamster wheel. Although some comments are worthwhile (rgbatduke) to follow as they bring something new into the discussion.
I admire your personal braveness to withstand all the, often personal, attacks from various sides which must be hard to cope with and the way you keep the discussion civil.
Please continue like you did and you will be the light tower in the climate discussion.
Cheers and happy holidays
Hoi Polloi
Thanks Dr. Curry for the above canvas for people to display their facts, opinions, and fantasy.
As I read through all of the comments, a simple theme kept coming to mind.
Trust, but verify. If you can’t, you don’t.
Regards, Ed
Exhausting, this. Models are not reality. A model reflects the assumptions of the model maker. Perhaps this truth exposes motivation not to use empirical observations to certify model effectiveness (ability to explain causality in nature via repeatable experiments). Those who benefit through State sponsored coercion are not likely to support true scientific inquiry. Faking of reality is morally corrupt. The IPCC fakes reality. Hence, . . .
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #159 * The New World
Pingback: Gruber Thinking in Climate Science: Disconnect Between Academia And The Real World. * The New World
Pingback: COP 20 i Lima, Climategate 5 år och några tankar om den nutida akademiska miljön - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen