Editorializing about the Editorial

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I just got my printed copy of the May 7th issue of Science Magazine, and I read their Editorial. This is the issue that contained the now-infamous Letter to the Editor with the Photoshopped image of a polar bear on an ice floe. An alternate version of that Photoshopped image is below:

Figure 1. Photoshopped version of a Photoshopped image of a Photoshopped Polar bear.

So is the Editorial as one-sided as the Letter? Surprisingly, no. There are some excellent ideas and statements in it … but it contains some egregious errors of fact, and some curious assertions and exaggerations. I have emphasised in bold those interesting parts below. First, the Editorial:

Stepping Back; Moving Forward

Brooks Hanson

Brooks Hanson is Deputy Editor for physical sciences at Science.

The controversial e-mails related to climate change, plus reported errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, have spurred a dangerous deterioration in the rational relation between science and society. One U.S. senator has called 17 prominent climate scientists criminals, and pundits have suggested that climate scientists should commit suicide. Fourteen U.S. states have filed lawsuits opposing the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, some asserting that “climate change science is a conspiracy.” South Dakota even resolved that there are other “astrological” forcings on climate. Scientists have been barraged by hateful e-mails. The debate has become polarized, and the distrust of scientists and their findings extends well beyond climate science. What can be done to repair society’s trust in science? A broader perspective is needed on all sides.

The main societal challenges—global energy supply, growing the food supply, and improving public health, among others—depend intimately on science, and for this reason society requires a vigorous scientific enterprise. Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained. Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks.

Addressing anthropogenic climate change exemplifies the challenges inherent in providing critical scientific advice to society (see the Policy Forum on p. 695 and Letter on p. 689). Climate is as global as today’s economy; we know from archaeological and historical records that an unstable climate has disrupted societies. For these reasons, scientists and governments are jointly committed to understanding the impacts of climate change. Thousands of scientists have volunteered for the IPCC or other assessments. Governments have a vested interest in the success of these assessments, and the stakes are high.

We thus must move beyond polarizing arguments in ways that strengthen this joint commitment. The scientific community must recognize that the recent attacks stem in part from its culture and scientists’ behavior. In turn, it is time to focus on the main problem: The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change while overestimating societies’ abilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists must meet other responsibilities. The ability to collect, model, and analyze huge data sets is one of the great recent advances in science and has made possible our understanding of global impacts. But developing the infrastructure and practices required for handling data, and a commitment to collect it systematically, have lagged. Scientists have struggled to address standardizing, storing, and sharing data, and privacy concerns. Funding must be directed not only toward basic science but toward facilitating better decisions made with the data and analyses that are produced. As a start, research grants should specify a data curation plan, and there should be a greater focus on long-term monitoring of the environment.

Because society’s major problems are complex, generating useful scientific advice requires synthesizing knowledge from diverse disciplines. As the need for synthesis grows, the avenues of communication are changing rapidly. Unfortunately, many news organizations have eviscerated their science staffs. As a result, stories derived from press releases on specific results are crowding out the thoughtful syntheses that are needed.

If the scientific community does not aggressively address these issues, including communicating its process of discovery and recognizing its modern data responsibilities, and if society does not constructively engage science, then the scientific enterprise and the whole of society are in danger of losing their crucial rational relationship. Carl Sagan’s warnings are especially apt today: “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” “This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

So, what’s wrong with the statements I highlighted in bold? Well, they’re not true. Let’s look at them one by one.

One U.S. senator has called 17 prominent climate scientists criminals…

Presumably, this refers to the Senate Minority Report by Senator Inhofe. However, he did not call 17 climate scientists criminals. In fact he does not use that word at all in connection with scientists. Instead, he made a much more nuanced series of statements:

In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal, among other things, unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some of the world’s preeminent climate scientists.

and:

The released CRU emails and documents display unethical, and possibly illegal, behavior. The scientists appear to discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. On several occasions they appear to discuss subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. Moreover, there are emails discussing unjustified changes to data by federal employees and federal grantees.

These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct.

and

Minority Staff has identified a preliminary sampling of CRU emails and documents which seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes, and which represent unethical and possibly illegal conduct by top IPCC scientists, among others.

So Brooks Hanson starts out with a false and misleading statement. Inhofe did not “call 17 prominent climate scientists criminals”, that’s simply not true. He said that some of their actions appeared to be possibly illegal … and me, I’d have to agree with the Senator.

On the other side of the pond, whether some of them were criminals was addressed by the UK Parliament Committee, who said:

There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six- month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions.

So it was only because the Statute of Limitations on any criminal offenses had expired that there were no criminal investigations of the acts … sounds like a validation of Senator Inhofe’s claim of “possibly illegal” to me …

… pundits have suggested that climate scientists should commit suicide.

Presumably, this refers to Glen Beck’s statement that:

There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred. I mean, these guys have so dishonored themselves, so dishonored scientists.

I find no other “pundits” who have “suggested that climate scientists should commit suicide”. Nor did Beck. He said that if the IPCC scientists who made the errors and misrepresentations were Japanese, they would have committed suicide from the shame. Now that may or may not be true, but is not a call for American scientists to act Japanese, even Beck knows that’s not possible.

Fourteen U.S. states have filed lawsuits opposing the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, some asserting that “climate change science is a conspiracy.”

I find no State (or any other) lawsuits making this claim against climate scientists, although I might have missed them. Curiously, there was a case (Ned Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA) where the claim was made the other way around, that there was a “civil conspiracy” among the oil companies to deny climate change. But I find nothing the other way.

I suspect that Brooks Hanson is referring (incorrectly) to the Resolution passed in Utah that states:

WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as “Climategate,” indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome;

Of course, this was a resolution, not a lawsuit. I don’t know if that claim is true or not, although the CRU emails show that there certainly was a “well organized and ongoing effort” to conceal the data regarding global temperature, and to affect the IPCC reports in an unethical and possibly illegal fashion.

South Dakota even resolved that there are other “astrological” forcings on climate.

Here’s the actual text of the South Dakota Bill:

That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.

I suspect that this was a simple error, and that what was meant was “astronomical” rather than “astrological”. This is supported by their use of “thermological” for “thermal”, as “thermology” is the science of using detailed thermal images of the human body to diagnose disease … I doubt they meant that. It is also supported by their use of “effect” rather than “affect”. I’d say very poor English skills, yes … astrology, no.

Scientists have been barraged by hateful e-mails.

Barraged by mails? Hey, it’s worse than emails, it’s public calls for action:

James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity.

Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors .

Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible .

David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed.

DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals (video).

Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics.

Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.

A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers .

Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.

Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers..

And Greenpeace threatened unspecified reprisals against unbelievers, saying:

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

And Brooks Hanson is worried about emails, and falsely accuses Senator Inhofe of calling climate scientists criminals? What’s wrong with this picture?

The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change …

Say what? I’d have to ask for citations on this one. There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years, Arctic sea ice is recovering, climate changes are within natural variation … and he claims the pace has been “underestimated” by the IPCC? Sorry, I don’t buy that one in the slightest.

As a start, research grants should specify a data curation plan …

Lack of plans is not the problem. The main grantor of climate science funds in the US, the National Science Foundation, has very clear regulations about the archiving of climate data … but they simply ignore them. And to make it worse, they continue funding scofflaw scientists who ignore them. Science Magazine and Nature Magazine have very clear policies about data archiving … but they don’t ask authors to follow them whenever they feel like it. The problem is not a lack of “data curation plans” as Hanson claims. It is that the people in charge of those plans have been looking the other way, even when people like myself and many others have asked them to enforce their policies and plans and rules. Those kinds of actions simply reinforce the public idea that all of climate science is a scam and a conspiracy. I don’t think it is either one … but man, some of the AGW supporters in positions of scientific power are sure doing their best to make it look that way …

Now, given all of that, what in the editorial did I like? There were several statements that I felt were very important:

We thus must move beyond polarizing arguments in ways that strengthen this joint commitment. The scientific community must recognize that the recent attacks stem in part from its culture and scientists’ behavior.

I could not agree more. The problems are not the result of some mythical Big-Oil funded climate skeptics public relations machine. They are the result of scientific malfeasance on a large scale by far too many of the top climate scientists. People are enraged by this, as there are few things that raise peoples’ ire more than knowing that they have been duped and misled. And the climate science community is the only one that can fix that.

If the scientific community does not aggressively address these issues, including communicating its process of discovery and recognizing its modern data responsibilities, and if society does not constructively engage science, then the scientific enterprise and the whole of society are in danger of losing their crucial rational relationship.

Well put. The problem is not that Inhofe has said some actions by top climate scientists are unethical and possibly illegal. The problem is that some top scientists acted in unethical and possibly illegal ways. The problem is not that people are sending hateful emails to scientists. It is that climate scientists have poisoned the well by publicly calling for the trial of people with whom they disagree, and then want to complain that people are being mean to them. The problem is not that states are taking to the law to fight bad science, it is that the bad science is so entrenched, and the peer review system has become so much of an old-boys club, that the only way to fight it is in the courts.

This is the crux of the matter for climate scientists who wish to restore the lost trust: do honest, transparent, ethical science, and let the results fall where they may. Stop larding “scientific” papers with pounds of  “might” and “could” and “may” and “possibly” and “conceivably”, we don’t care about your speculations, we want your science. Stop underestimating the errors and overestimating the certainty. Stop making up the “scary scenarios” advocated by Stephen Schneider. Stop calling for trials for people who don’t follow the party line.

And most of all, climate scientists need to learn to say those “three little words”.

You know how women are always hoping that guys will say those three little words, “I love you”? It’s like the old joke, “You know how to get rid of cockroaches? … Ask them for a commitment.” Those are the three little words that men find hard to say.

In climate science, the three little words that climate scientists find hard to say, the three little words they need to practice over and over are “We don’t know”.

We don’t know what the climate will be like in a hundred years. We don’t know what the climate sensitivity is, or even if the concept of a linear climate sensitivity relating temperature and forcing is a valid concept. We don’t know if the earth will start to warm or start to cool after the end of this current 15-year period of neither warming nor cooling. We don’t know if a rise in temperature will be a net gain or a net loss for the planet. There are heaps of things we don’t know about the climate, and the general public knows that we don’t know them.

Climate science is a new science, one of the newest. We have only been studying climate extensively for a quarter century or so, and it is an incredibly difficult field of study. The climate is a hugely complex, driven, chaotic, resonant, constructal, terawatt-scale planetary heat engine. It contains five major subsystems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and cryosphere), none of which are well understood. Each of these subsystems has a host of forcings, resonances, inter-reservoir transfers, cycles, and feedbacks which operate both internally and between the subsystems. The climate has important processes which operate on spatial scales from atomic to planet-wide, and on temporal scales from nanoseconds to millions of years. Our present state of knowledge of that system contains more unknowns than knowns. Here is my own estimation of the current state of our climate knowledge, which some of you may have seen:

In this situation, the only honest thing a climate scientist can do is to do the best, clearest, and cleanest science possible; to be totally transparent and reveal all data and codes and methods; to insist that other climate scientists practice those same simple scientific principles; and to say “we don’t know” rather than “might possibly have a probabilistic chance of maybe happening” for all the rest. That is the only path to repairing the lost trust between the public and climate science.

Oh, yeah, and one more thing … apply those principles to scientific editorials as well. Don’t exaggerate, and provide some citations for scientific editorials, trying to trace these vague claims is both boring and frustrating …

About these ads

264 thoughts on “Editorializing about the Editorial

  1. “Oh, yeah, and one more things … provide some citations for scientific editorials, trying to trace these vague claims is both boring and frustrating …”

    I’ll bet! Many thanks for your efforts, we appreciate it.

  2. “Oh, yeah, and one more things … provide some citations for scientific editorials, trying to trace these vague claims is both boring and frustrating …”

    Yes, its like the Western front in WWI. A war of attrition. Thank you Willis for standing up against the Gaia-people.

    This is not Scientists against sceptics in society.
    This is IPCC and politicians surpressing science.

  3. I posted comments on a story on another website and a climate alarmist posted back that I should be removed from posting since it people might believe me.

    Well DUH !!

    He also posted that I should be sent to a re-education camp to be taught the correct beliefs about climate change.

    I responded that even though I disagreed with what he believed I would protest if he were forbidden to express his views.

  4. Brooks Hanson could hardly have provided a more conclusive proof that people like him are simply incapable of sticking to the facts on this subject. The urge to embellish and exaggerate is simply stronger than whatever integrity he can muster.

  5. To Wondermanwillis,
    Now Willis if at some future date you decide to put all your posts into print, I for one will use your book as a Xmas present to all friends and family.

  6. Climate science = Find a piece of noise that goes up, publish it. Zoom in the y-scale to make it look big. Find a peice of noise that does not go up, keep “researching” till find a piece of noise that goes up.

    Can’t wait for the global cooling to come back into fashion because then it will be:
    Climate science = Find a piece of noise that goes down, publish it. Find a peice of noise that does not go down, keep “researching” till find a piece of noise that goes down.

  7. astrological? Did someone’s wife type this up in between crystal ball gazing for future climate and reading Zodiac For Planet Loving Greens?

  8. Willis – just to be clear – is it the case that the words you attribute to ‘Greenpeace’ above were in fact briefly posted as a comment on a public Greenpeace website, – and soon removed?

    Reply: No, it was a blog post by (I believe) their communications director of India ~ ctm

  9. Wonderful summary, Willis. You always get the real issues lined up so well, and pick them off so succinctly and with amazing clarity. Thank you!

  10. The climate scientists had a choice to make years ago! The climate scientists had a choice to make at each IPCC statement! Some removed themselves from what they thought was a corrupted process! The others burrowed in for the fight! By supporting bad science the editor degrades the value of the publication and by failing to accept the currently known problems the entire scientific community will suffer. The road back to respectability? Generations! The “One Bad Apple” was not discredited and corrupted the whole field!

  11. Though this is being portrayed by alatrmists as a “scientific consensus” on one side & sceptics on the other this is not so. If you look at the “scientists” on the alarmist side they are, with 1 single exception*, paid by government. By definition anything that doesn’t include the majority of scientists isn’t a “scientific consensus.

    There has certainly been a lamentable failure of duty by scientist’s professional bodies, many of whom get government funding & all of whom seem to be run by politically connected “scientists” but that does not affect the real expressed position of real working scientists.

    *I have asked on websites worldwide for the names of even 2 prominent scientists independent of government who support the catastrophic warming scenario & have only twice got a responsive response – both named Prof James Lovelock who, following climategate has largely changed his mind & says that only the sceptics have kept the debate “sane”.

  12. Sad indeed. Such a shame you’re preaching to the converted on here. No chance a [snipped] version has gone to Science Magazine as a letter?

  13. Wonderful article, an ALMOST error-free use of the English language (rare these days). Might as well make it perfect: “…there are few things that raise peoples’ ire more than knowing that they have been duped and mislead.” Should be ‘misled’. Thanks so much for your wonderful contributions, Willis.

  14. Willis…welcome to wessenbissers…bissenwessers…eh…CAMP BESSENWISSERS UNITED……Seriously, I just heard on the Swedish Nat. Radio, a medical science
    journalist complain about an article that obviously endorsed some medicine and the
    peer-reviewers were bought by that medicine manufacturer…Have we heard it before?? He said: “I thought I was told the scientific TRUTH”…Sic!…Sigh…”Science
    journalists” may be some of most naive people around…

  15. That picture is silly- everybody knows that polar bears at the south pole can not blow smoke rings. (rotflmao) I’ve got that paper somewhere…

  16. Of all the commentary ever made (by anyone on anyside) ….. I find the most disturbing to be to continual re-assetion that climate change is happening faster than ever predicted. The reason I became interested in this topic in the first place was because I could find very little solid evidence that it was happening at all ….. and that where predictions had been made the observation fell very SHORT of the actual predictions. As pointed out – global warming requires the planet to be warming and it hasn’t for well over a decade (in contradiction to the IPCC 2001 predictions). How can it be happening faster than predicted ? Its beyond me how anyone can state this !

    This flawed assertion (when made by supposed scientists) is really their lowest point.

  17. You did not comment on my favourite line in that editorial, Willis:

    Governments have a vested interest in the success of these assessments, and the stakes are high.

  18. Don’t they see the irony in the fact that it’s such sensationalist, tabloid-type gutterpress outpourings from scientific institutions which led to the public’s distrust in science in the first place.

  19. All I see lately is that the warmists are moving ahead with their warmist agenda. They are ignoring the climategate scandal, and ignoring all recent data with respect to claims of unprecedented sea level rise ( show me any ..) and claiming the hottest April in history was last month , ( it was an anomoly caused by El Nino wasn’t it ) . Yes, April was warm here in eastern Canada, but now the cooling is back.
    We had frost this morning, and this is typically a hot weekend here in Nova Scotia.
    Climate change ?? Yes, …but man-made …not a chance. Natural variations of natures normal oscillations.

  20. The off-handed comment about the pace of change is, to me, a clear statement of the bias of the editorial board of the magazine. The most important phrase IMO, is the quote attributed to Carl Sagan: “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” “This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
    The”sooner or later” is now. While everyone is decrying the supposed state of the environment, they should be really decrying the state of education. How, with the repository of knowledge and techniques that now exist, the state of knowledge of ordinary folk could have declined so greatly is beyond comprehension. That’s the real decline being hidden.

    We are in an age of anthropogenic global dumbing, not warming. My parents, bless their souls, with their uncompleted high school diplomas, two world wars, and the reality of the painful Depression under their belts understood far more about how the world works physically, politically and ethically than the snobbish kids do today.

  21. Willis,
    Excellent post! Well said!

    You may have overlooked that the climate systems work interactively and studying only one system with the exclusion of others will create an incorrect outcome.
    Science as a whole has not looked at the mechanics of how this planet operates, yet the INDIVIDUAL closed science in specific areas is the system we currently use for science. “God help the bastard that doesn’t fit in this line” and studies outside the box we have created.

  22. Thanks Willis, again, for spelling it out so succinctly. Is it unreasonable to hope that the sort of editorial you address here represents some tentative steps ‘backwards’ for the mainstream science press? After all it would be impossible for them to turn right around in one jump – wouldn’t it?

  23. I don’t know what to do anymore with TV and radio stations and newspapers that continuously refer to “global warming caused by carbon dioxide” and then never allow anyone to speak who considers such a statement to be factually incorrect.
    I think I will initiate a complaint at the broadcast complaints commision (BCC) here if I hear once more someone saying or stating – as a matter of fact – that global warming is caused by releasing carbon dioxide – and I will maintain that the basis of my complaint is that the station/newspaper refuses to adhere to the principle of balanced reporting, i.e. hearing the other side. I think the BCC here is quite strict on that code.
    Willis, do you perhaps have a paper that I can use to support my case to the BCC or can I use the material that you summarised for us in congenital climate abnormalities?

  24. netdr says:
    May 22, 2010 at 3:00 am
    He also posted that I should be sent to a re-education camp to be taught the correct beliefs about climate change.

    I get far worse responses about comic book fantasy and fictional characters. When you have actual physical proof, it is ignored for the this is what we we taught mentality.

  25. JB makes a good point. The 2010 ice line (for the second time) does seem to be heading South. But it’s a bit silly for either side to trumpet their cause as it wanders about, week by week: let’s wait for the summer melt to reverse.

  26. JB says:
    May 22, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Where’s the beef? Read again the article.
    “The main grantor of climate science funds in the US, the National Science Foundation, has very clear regulations about the archiving of climate data … but they simply ignore them”
    So, how does anyone know which data sets are correct, the unavailable raw data sets, or the ‘filtered’ graphics?
    How many times does one need to go on a wild goose chase to figure out it’s not worth it?
    The public is just as tired of policiticians saying one thing and doing another as I am of chasing down climactic ghosts.
    It’s one week before June, we have winter storms in the Pacific Northwest for the next 2 weeks, the local meteorologist is shaking his head because this is not supposed to be happening, El Nino is crashing La Nina style, and you are worried about where nobody lives.
    Ok. I got it.

  27. No, it was a blog post by (I believe) their communications director of India

    Ah yes – however it has been removed and this posted:

    Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about. Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy. … Of course the anti-science brigade on the web has seized on the line in Gene’s post and run with it (and will run and run and run), taken it out of context and run with it some more – it’s what the climate contrarians exist to do.

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    Looks like he was right there. I am not sure that representing a disowned and deleted blog post as an official Greenpeace statement advances the argument very far. Speaking of advancing the argument in a cool rational way, here is Viscount Monckton, keynote speaker at the recent ICCC conference, and the Republican choice for witness at the recent congressional hearings, writing about Mann et al.

    These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical
    manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than “global warming” will ever kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

    Nice.

  28. Beautifully put Willis.

    The words “I don’t know” should be emblazoned in every lab.

    There is no shame in these words…It is the path to honest enquiry.

  29. Go on, have some fun! Open your word processor and type in “astronomical” with a typo or two and see when you get “astrological”. :-)

  30. Sera: May 22, 2010 at 3:53 am
    That picture is silly- everybody knows that polar bears at the south pole can not blow smoke rings. (rotflmao) I’ve got that paper somewhere…

    I think you’ll find the footnote in that paper referred only to the fact that they can’t blow smoke rings that swirl in a clockwise direction.

    I’m almost positive it’s on page 12 — next to the Camel Filters ad…

  31. While it isn’t as sexy, what Inhofe and his brethren should be doing is forcing hearings and GAO audits on the enforcement of the data curation issues designated in relevant grants and policies controlling those grants. And offering bills/amendments that would cause “clawbacks” of significant portions of grant monies if the data (including computer code implementations of the algorithms used to analyse it) are not archived to public access as promised. Say a 25% clawback? That’d get some attention from university administrators and cause the right kind of irresistable pressures to mount on these recalcitrant scientists who “don’t share well with others”.

  32. Hanson’s tone is the usual:
    “Us scientists are only trying to do good things for the planet and people”.

    When in fact it is more like:
    Some know-it-all scientists are zealots who can see nothing good in human activity, and have taken it upon themselves to try to radically change how the parasitic human species lives and survives.

    There’s plenty of evidence showing they have been much less than honest in their work.

  33. From the editorial:

    ““This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
    *
    *
    Say, isn’t that what happened with ClimateGate?

  34. JB @ 3:05:
    How excactly is sea ice recovering? All the trends are down, ice ext, area, volume and now the daily extent observations that others were using to claim sea ice was “recovering” to the avg levels, has fallen below 1979-2006 avg (Arctic Roos) and the 2007 levels according to NSIDC?

    I suggest you go back to statistics analysis classes. There’s no info on those sites that hasnt been on here. The answer is in the big picture not the snapshot.
    And especially look at this AGAIN:

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/total-icearea-from-1978-2007

    – If you know how to read graph that is interesting indeed.

    Now ALSO notice that THIS article is NOT about Sea Ice or GW. It is about the attitude of the ‘Consensus Group’ toward questioning of the method and promotion in the political arena

  35. If we don’t know we don’t know it, how is it that we seem to know how much it is that we don’t know we don’t know, if you know what I mean?

  36. The exaggeration and poor quality of the editorial isn’t really anything new. All of global warming is exaggeration and poor quality. Global warming believers do a wonderful service with things like this editorial to those have real doubts about ‘global warming’ since it is easy to pick out the flaws. It’s low hanging fruit.

    Here is a good case in point: James Hansen’s in now infamous 1988 testimony

    particularly from :56 to 1:16

  37. Brooks Hanson said that “The main societal challenges—global energy supply, growing the food supply, and improving public health, among others—depend intimately on science, and for this reason society requires a vigorous scientific enterprise.”

    Really? Those are the main societal challenges? In any case, it would seem that demonizing “carbon” would be entirely counter-productive. In order for humanity to advance and to thrive, we need plentiful, readily available, and easily affordable energy. Yes, we do need science, but unfortunately the scientific process has been so subverted by the Warmists that it will probably be decades before the trust in scientists will be regained. They can start by cleaning house.

  38. Willis:

    I’ll try to make the same point I brought up in January. None of the facts
    stated in editorials in Science Magazine, Nature, comments on talk shows,
    or press releases by institutions or their spokesfolk are made under oath.

    The “facts” are subject to “spin” until someone nails them to wall sheared of
    their sheepish mentality, fuzzy thinking and wooley logic.

    Even those who few AGW proponents involved in the “science” who have
    acutually been sworn in recently in official venues have dodged or deflected
    most of the limted but straight forward questions put to them.

    Now the unbelivers are “mean”. What a bunch of children.

    R.S.Brown

  39. pettyfog,

    Thanks for the charts. I especially liked this one.

    EVERYBODY PANIC!!…

    not.

    If the Antarctic was acting the same, then there would be cause for concern. But it’s not. So what we’re seeing is an example of local climate change, not global warming, or global anything else.

  40. Willis, that’s another great post, but I wondered why you passed on the paragraph (paragraph 3)? I thought it was loaded with unsupported assumptions.

    “Addressing anthropogenic climate change exemplifies the challenges inherent in providing critical scientific advice to society (see the Policy Forum on p. 695 and Letter on p. 689).”

    Is that global anthropogenic climate change? I’m aware of local anthropogenic climate change, UHI or deforestation for example, but I think it’s an unproven assumption that there is global anthropogenic climate change.

    “Climate is as global as today’s economy; …

    Say what?!? I’m assuming that statement assumes that the reader will assume that the statement means something.

    “… we know from archaeological and historical records that an unstable climate has disrupted societies.”

    Duh! That’s a given, leading to this non sequitur:

    “For these reasons, scientists and governments are jointly committed to understanding the impacts of climate change.

    That assumes that the correct roles of science and government should be a joint effort. I’ve no argument against climate scientists researching to understand climate, and I’ve no argument against government wanting a heads-up on what the climate might do. However, it seems to me that the correct role for scientists is to do science and to keep adding to our understanding of the climate, and the correct role of government is to govern. The early returns are in. We’ve seen the results of the joint efforts of government and science in the field of “climate change.” So far, it hasn’t been pretty.

    “Thousands of scientists have volunteered for the IPCC or other assessments.”

    And we’re to assume that everyone is living happily ever after? Someone forgot to mention that many, many of those scientists washed their hands of the IPCC when they found out that thieir science was ignored and the conclusions had already been written.

    “Governments have a vested interest in the success of these assessments, and the stakes are high.”

    Several others have already beaten me to the punch on that tidbit… good comments on that already.

    So, Willis: I’m going to assume ;o) you didn’t deconstruct the whole piece because you wanted to keep your post short and also to leave something for the commenters here to pick over.

  41. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Nice.

    Too late for that. You people can dish it out, but can’t take it, eh? The tide has turned.

  42. Willis,

    The science we currently use is so tainted with inaccuracies and theories that actual physical evidence is seen as a theory.

    On a couple of occasions now, I have been approached to open a possible web school on planetary mechanics as the further advanced I go, the more out of sequence I am with the rest of the science community.

    True planetary science is encompassing ALL areas, and finding the interacting qualities that make this planet a very complex system.

    Terms: center of balance and gravity are thoughly understood. Not just a generic mass excuse, when mass has no energy unless other forces are included.

  43. Willis,
    I’m all for accuracy in these matters. It’s true that Inhofe didn’t exactly “call 17 prominent climate scientists criminals”, although his spokesperson came close to that language when
    “We are not saying that there are 17 scientists we should be calling criminals,” said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Inhofe. “I’m not putting a number on 17.”.

    But thinking of accuracy, your quote from the UK Committee doesn’t help – it only mentions possible FOI breach by UEA.

    So let’s apply your spirit of enquiry to some of your claims:

    “James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity.”
    No he didn’t (and your link is wrong). He said:
    ” Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
    ……
    “Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors .”
    No, he said:
    “”These villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.””

    “Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.”
    Joe Romm said no such thing. A commenter at his blog said said:
    “an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.”
    Romm removed the comment.

    “A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers .”
    No, your link doesn’t say that. The “blogger” seems to be a commenter, but no actual quote about execution is supplied. But suggestions for severe punishment of scientists are frequent in blog comments. Here just yesterday, on a normally civilised blog:
    “I cannot be conciliatory to Mann. I would hang him high, in the tradition of the Old West.”

    “Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.”
    No, she said
    “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.”
    The American Meteorological Society is under no obligation to give a Seal of Approval to views that it disagrees with, and there’s no certification issue.

  44. Phil Clarke:
    Monckton called for Mann to be prosecuted for fraud, not for voicing is opinions. And it was fraud: he knew at the time he published his results that it was inappropriate and misleading to include the pine trees from Calif. because the increase in growth rate was from CO2, not from heat.

  45. Ponder this tidbit when considering the planetary impact on climate: Earth is supersonic at the equator. Say what? Rotating once every 24 hours with a circumference of 24,901 miles gives a rotational velocity just over 1,000 mph. Sure, it doesn’t seem like the earth is traveling anywhere near that fast when standing there (and I’m bending the definition of “supersonic” for emphasis), but perception is quite often very different from undeniable fact.

    Also consider that just a quarter of the planet away (at each pole) the earth’s orbital velocity is essentially zero. No wonder earth’s predominant fluid and gas are in motion.

  46. I was most impressed with a leading British Vulcanologist who was asked by a radio listener how much CO2 the Iceland volcano was emitting. He replied – we don’t know.

  47. Stop larding “scientific” papers with pounds of “might” and “could” and “may” and “possibly” and “conceivably”, we don’t care about your speculations, we want your science. Stop underestimating the errors and overestimating the certainty. Stop making up the “scary scenarios” advocated by Stephen Schneider. Stop calling for trials for people who don’t follow the party line.

    That would be good advice for the media. Sadly, they will not take it for it is not in their political template.

  48. JB says: (May 22, 2010 at 3:05 am)
    “All the trends are down, ice ext, area, volume and now the daily extent observations that others were using to claim sea ice was “recovering” to the avg levels, has fallen below 1979-2006 avg (Arctic Roos) and the 2007 levels according to NSIDC?”

    I am sick and tired of references to the “1979 – 2000 (or whatever 2000 year you want to pick)” as if that period was the absolute average of what arctic sea ice levels should always be. These are simply arbitrary base lines used for comparisons against themselves. They are not “normal” or “average” for anything other than the base line period itself. Hell, I have lived longer than any of those base lines and am sure there are many folks older than I that are still around. Or perhaps everyone who existed prior to 1979 should go to the Carousel and be “renewed”.

  49. “we know from archaeological and historical records that an unstable climate has disrupted societies.”

    Wait a minute, I thought climate has been absolutley stable and unchanging until we humans mucked it up starting in the 20th century??? Those Anasazi and their damned Hummers….

  50. Someone needs to spike, once and for all, the idea that scientific (or other) truth depends upon consensus. It depends upon one person being right and being able to prove it, either with incontrovertible evidence, or with a repeatable and verifiable experiment. There are numberless times in history when the consensus has been wrong. There are also times when yesterday’s science has been proven incorrect, or incomplete, or inadequately understood. Let the scientists get the evidence, and let them present it in such a way that any other person competent in the field can check it or can reliably replicate the steps that produced it. That is what science is supposed to do. Only after the evidence is in and the science be seen objectively to be true and reliable should any government consider steps that potentially endanger economies, livelihoods, the environment, or any other factors in our lives.

    Thanks, Willis, for your excellent writing and understanding.

  51. Nick Stokes–

    Re Hansen and RK, Jr on show trials –surely that’s a pretty uninteresting distinction you’re making there? Having set that precedent as an appropriate penalty for some skeptics (and by the way, both men have clearly prejudged the appropriate verdict of the “court” in their text), is it really reasonable to think it will stop there? All of those kind of movements to extremism against minorities start with the most popularly sympathetic cases as exemplars of why it is appropriate. If they meet with success, how many *stop* there?

    I don’t know who at what blog called for Mann to be “hung high” ala Old West. Was he an elected representative like RK, Jr? Or an official high in the councils of our government on this issue like Hansen? Or just “random dude on the internet”? Surely it makes a difference in the intimidation factor received by others the actual ability of the speaker to deliver, or contribute towards delivering, on the threat?

    And make no mistake –those kinds of statements are all about wide-spread intimidation of fellow travelers of the supposed target named specifically. I don’t condone “random dude on the internet”, but I am genuinely outraged when our elected representatives and/or so-called “public servants” engage in it.

  52. Thanks again Willis for another great article. It is difficult to imagine how clueless Brooks Hanson and those of his ilk are.

  53. Nick Stokes says:
    May 22, 2010 at 6:13 am
    Willis,
    I’m all for accuracy in these matters.
    —————–Reply:
    Granted there is vitriol on both sides, but which side matters? The climate realists that are criticizing the abuse of science, or the “climate scientists” that distort and wonk policy?

    Which of these has caused foodstuff shortages as countries rush hell-bent on producing biofuels while people starve? Which ones?

    And as a consequence of their actions based on falacy, which ones are guilty of genocide?

    So take your polemic nuances and stuff it. What we’re talking about is serious as a heart attack.

  54. Willis, as usual a very clearly and well written piece, would there were a thousand more like you. (Piano and cartooning too Geeshh)

    With this editorial of Science Magazine, the editors have made their stand very clear. They will knowingly publish flat out lies. For a supposed “peer-reviewed” NEUTRAL science magazine this should spell their death knell. Now everyone knows Senator Inhofe was correct.

    “..On several occasions they appear to discuss subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication…”

    Science Magazine has just proved that “the scientific peer review process has been subverted”.

    Thanks for the rock solid proof Science Magazine. I will be sending this article to all my Congress critters with a copy of the relevant e-mails and other information. I will be asking WHAT is being done about the misuse of public funds too.

    I suggest the rest of the US citizens here do the same.

  55. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:39 am

    http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-your-source-lies-slander-and-misleading-climate-science

    Read this and KNOW that it is NOT true. This is how the CAGW side has to conduct itself. Ask yourself why they might be so afraid of this man that they have to trash him so badly. A Doctor of Science in climatology (retired) whose study of the records kept at Hudson’s Bay are very important because they clearly indicate that the assertions of “unprecedented” weather changes are wrong. IOW, they ignore evidence that does not support their assertions. How “scientific is that Phil Clarke. Nice. (SNIP)!!!!!!

    REPLY: Someday we should all show up at Hoggan’s office with protest signs and cream pies. ;-) – Anthony

  56. Phil Clarke: May 22, 2010 at 4:39 am
    Ah yes – however it has been removed and this posted:
    ‘Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about. ”
    Looks like he was right there. I am not sure that representing a disowned and deleted blog post as an official Greenpeace statement advances the argument very far.

    The blog post was deleted, but not disowned — Greenpeace *defended* the post using the laughable argument that a call for “direct action” referred to peaceful civil disobedience, which is a crock. The phrase “direct action” is LeftSpeak for “violent confrontation” — ask any cop in Europe about Action Directe. Ask any Chicago cop how “peaceful” the SCLC’s Coordinated Direct Action was. Ask any cop in New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Washington DC, or Los Angeles about how “non-violent” the Direct Action Network members at their protests.

  57. No wonder that our penguin flocks are diminishing. We have been raided by those white bear things from up north and they are partying on them!

  58. Willis Eschenbach – you are a gem – a jewel in the crown of common sense. I salute you, sir!

    You know, also how to write good clear English.

    Thank you for your outlook on a stressed and stressing subject.

  59. Rush Limbaugh, comparing environmentalists to jihadis:

    “The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?”

  60. Monckton called for Mann to be prosecuted for fraud, not for voicing is opinions.

    He stated Mann et al are guilty of genocide. If you have hard evidence of fraud you should present it to Penn State U. [or just post it here]. His scientific conduct has, of course, been investigated and no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been found.

  61. Personally, I condemn both sides for unhelpful and over-the-top comments in this debate. I wish both would just stop whining and start sharing information.

    Surely, Professor Denning is the person to start with. Did nobody at the Chicago Conference agree to meet with him & at least review some data or set up a joint study?

  62. @pettyfog

    Did you notice that Willis mentioned Arctic sea ice was returning to normal, which clearly is not the case.

  63. The UN IPCC did underestimate the rate of climate change. It’s reversing much quicker than they state.

  64. Finally got time to read the post Willis.

    Back to the bear picture though….the one (laid down) watching the video has some mighty impressive gonads! ;-)

  65. Grrr, both Science and Nature have become nothing else then mere propaganda outlets for the green far left.

  66. Nick Stokes:

    ROTFL! So Hansen doesn’t want the run-of-the-mill skeptic to be tried for high crimes against humanity, only the people who deliver the fuel that we need to run our civilization. Thanks for the clarification, Nick!

  67. @Willis, re “I find no State (or any other) lawsuits making this claim against climate scientists, although I might have missed them.”

    The State of Texas filed a lawsuit under the Clean Air Act against the US EPA challenging its Endangerment Finding for CO2, alleging that 1) the Endangerment Finding was arrived at by a fundamentally flawed methodology, and 2) that methodology was legally unsupported.

    see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/texas-v-us-epa-over-co2-endangerment.html

    There are other similar lawsuits, with some sources stating sixteen have been filed. The EPA website lists ten, as of 5/22/2010. see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

    One could argue, I suppose, that climate scientists are not the defendants in these lawsuits, rather, the US EPA is the defendant. The Texas lawsuit states that the work relied upon by the EPA was flawed, and that work was performed, at least in part, by climate scientists.

    I do not know whether or not any of the lawsuits allege that “climate change science is a conspiracy.” I rather doubt that they do, as the word “conspiracy” has the legal meaning when used in a lawsuit, that is, the crime of conspiracy has been committed. It would be odd for a civil lawsuit to allege criminal wrongdoing, as crimes may be prosecuted only by, oddly enough, a prosecutor. The word “conspiracy” is not used in the Texas lawsuit.

  68. “Phil Clarke says:
    [...]
    “Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy. … Of course the anti-science brigade on the web has seized on the line in Gene’s post[...]”
    Looks like he was right there. ”

    1.) Post threatening calls to intimidate the enemy.
    2.) Take down the post after you get a 1000 comments protesting against it.
    3.) Don’t forget to include an insult into your apology.
    4.) profit!

  69. “… we know from archaeological and historical records that an unstable climate has disrupted societies.”

    Fact: the earth’s climate is unstable. It always has been, and always will be. And societies have always had to adapt to this natural phenomenon.

    But in this editorial’s context, the statement is clearly meant to frighten the ignorant. The implication is that society must do something to make the earth’s climate stable. In other words, man must try to disrupt the natural process of climate instability, without regard to unintended consequences. Brilliant!

  70. Those three little words some researchers find so hard to say; “We don’t know.” Shades of the Red Green show, methinks.

  71. Even if it had not been a mistake, a skeptic entertaining the role of astrology in the global warming hoax makes a lot more sensce than the use of numerology by the secular, socialist schoolteachers in the government-funded education machine to further the hoax, no?

  72. “TFN Johnson says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:33 am
    JB makes a good point. The 2010 ice line (for the second time) does seem to be heading South.”

    Actually, at both poles the ice line is going north (because it is May). But maybe you are influenced by these australien maps that have south at the top? (It would still be going north).

  73. “The main societal challenges—global energy supply, growing the food supply, and improving public health, among others—depend intimately on science, and for this reason society requires a vigorous scientific enterprise. Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained. Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks.”

    Willis, you should have highlighted this too. Global energy supply is the main thing we need for all the benefits of prosperity, sufficient good quality food and good health, and the science that is under discussion here is the very one that is trying to kill off the only sources of energy that are practical and the wealth that is necessary to attain these laudable achievements. Hundreds of billions have been wasted on bandwagon research, growing forests of ineffective windmills and the like that could have been invested in development in the poorer parts of the world. If we are looking for an alternative to fossil fuels, forget the idea of replacing them with these toys (I’m all for green energy on an individual, civic, or corporate level for their buildings- hey solar panels on the roof make sense – but not panelling the Mojave with glass! or chopping up condors, seagulls (recall the Youtube of a hawk diving and swinging repeatedly through the blades until it got chopped) and making a huge eyesore). We already have seen the outcome of science’s bio fuels – higher food prices and shortages. No, the energy arena is not been well done by science – it is for engineers who have to constrain the science to fit an economic reality. Science could tackle the nuclear waste matter but they are reluctant to deal with this sort of thing. It would be more fun to spray the stratosphere with sulphur dioxide, to put a blanket over Greenland and Antarctica, or spray the ocean up in the air to make more clouds – see what I mean that it is a matter for the engineer who is already laughing about this stuff.

    There is no shortage of available energy – nuclear. Yeah, I know, the same crowd that battled against nuclear is now battling against coal and oil so I guess there is not room for argument with them on that. Also, I’m aware of the nuclear waste and the non-peacful uses etc. etc. But you know what? Whether we like it or not, when conventional energy sources decline with depletion, we are going to go nuclear anyway. Unfortunately, we have wasted 40 years in which we probably would have solved the (largely blown out of proportion) problems associated with nuclear. France is 80% nuclear only because France is France and they march to their own drummer always whether the WWF, or Gpeace or whoever trys to change them. We will join them eventually and may have to heat the atmosphere and pump a little CO2 into it if AGW theory is correct.

  74. And STOP piling on papers whose conclusions you disagree with while ignoring those papers whose conclusions match your own. If only Mann 98 et al’s paper had enjoyed the same level of scrutiny and skepticism received by Lindzen. I believe that’s a symptom of the real problem: which scientist is awarded tenure in academia is largely determined by other scientists who have achieved tenure. That ultimately leads to group think and scientists unaligned with the “enlightened” seeking employment elsewhere (like big oil heaven forbid!). Fix tenure and the hiring practices of media rags like Science Magazine and everything will be fine.

    It’s interesting that Phil Jones self-destructed after Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen retired. Jones was even celebrating his new-found freedom in emails: “Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness.” Be careful what you wish for, Phil. Perhaps removing all of the scientists who disagree with you isn’t such a great ideal. That email (1256765544.txt) also shows that there really is a difference between the old guard of science and the new.

  75. Who were/are the original promoters/funders of the Global Warming/Climate change fraud?. Are they still pushing the same agenda?. Why?. What is it so important behind it?

  76. Thanks Willis. The pronouncement that the ‘debate is over’ is a veiled threat to settle our differences by other means, in Santer’s dark alley or in courtrooms or in congress.
    I find it ironic that a group of people who are trained to ‘use your words’ to settle conflict have even suggested the things they did.

  77. “The main societal challenges-global energy supply, growing the food supply, and improving public health, among others-depend intimately on science, and for this reason society requires a vigorous scientific enterprise. ”

    Then why are you proposing reducing our energy supplies? Why are you using cropland to “grow” energy instead of food?

    “Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained”

    Proof please.

  78. The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change …

    Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

    Hasn’t the argument all along been that the IPCC is the gold standard for the study of climate change? The IPCC brings together the best of the best to analyze all the latest research and act as a counselor to governments about the effects of climate change? It’s the synthesis of what the top climate scientists in the whole world think. The unbiased efforts of the IPCC (i.e. pure science) are what’s supposed to give us citizens confidence in the claims of AGW and the measures necessary to combat it.

    And then along comes one scientific journal to assert that the IPCC is wrong and climate change is, to paraphrase, “worse than we thought.” In other words, they have just declared that those millions of dollars and millions of man hours and thousands of scientists’ expert analysis that have gone into the IPCC reports have all been a waste of time. A lone scientific journal knows more than the IPCC and its thousands of scientists does and can invalidate all their work with a single sentence.

    So, is the IPCC the gold standard or not? If it is, how can Science make that claim, especially as offhandedly as they do (as has been pointed out above)? And if it’s not, wasn’t all the time, money and expertise poured into the IPCC process for the last 20 years a waste? Why should the public buy into the sacrosanct nature of the IPCC and its conclusions (as has been drummed into us over the last 20 years) if one of the leading scientific journals in the world can’t even do it?

  79. One can hardly quarrel with your fine admonitions regarding the openess and h0nesty necessary in the scientific process. But it still comes down to the one issue for which I’m not sure there is a solution — the issue of funding bias.

    A Federal agency come to me and says, “Frank, I have a million bucks here; and I need to know whether climate (or ocean acidity, or suburban bedbug infestations, or whatever) is a problem. Take a year and let me know what you find out.” Am I likely to go back to them six months later and say, “Nope, nothing to worry about; and, by the way, here’s $500K back that I didn’t need”; or am I more likely to say “Wow, I don’t know; looks like there might be a problem. I have a dozen related issues I need to pursue”?

    Perhaps some sort of “blind” funding pool is called for where the sources of funds are hidden and multiple research proposals are listed as available to “interested”
    researchers. This would not only decouple research studies from their sources and their “expected” answers, but also eliminate the temptation to string out a project by offering the promise of other projects to come.

  80. Climate change is battle between scientists and between belief systems. Science gets lost in such battles. It is important to note that the idea of the National Academies was championed by Louis Agassiz. Agassiz saw the chance to create a quasi governmental “society” where he and his fellow anti-Darwinians would be able to hand pick members. The quasi governmental status would give the force of authority to the antiDarwin position. (I think it was Dana that achieved an end run around Agassiz’z plan) Both sides in the Darwin wars in the late 1800s also sought to pack university positions with like minded academics. Anti-Darwinians used pressure/threats to philanthropic funding to the universities to control the correctness of evolution.

    DDT becomes a political battle. The science of DDT wins in court but it is somehow overuled by EPA regulation. The scientists supporting DDT and others warning caution relative to cancer scares are smeared (Bruce Ames and others)

    Acid rain was not discovered it was announced under Carter. Reagan was able to push the half billion NAPAP study to investigate the science. Acid rain was the first crisis to use a natural phemomena as the cirisis name. All rain is acid– it make it impossible for a scientist to claim acid rain was not real. Marketing genius and adopted by climate change. The director of NAPAP was forced to resign when the interim report found acid rain was not as dire a threat as claimed. The new director promised that acid rain would be found as a problem. Bush Sr came into office promising to be an environmental president. The NAPAP report was concluded with the unfortunate inability to find support for extreme damage of acid rain. EPA refused at first to release the report until Congress passed the Clean Air Act legislation. The report was finally released but noone in Congress read the report since the political solution had already been achieved. Rather than switch to low sulfur western coal the eastern high sulfur mining unions lobbied that the CWA mandate sulfur scrubbers at all power plants whether or not low sulfur coal was used. The Clean Air Act was passed. EPA then publicly smeared the lead scientists ED Krug and blacklisted him as a scientist. Acid rain used models to prove the acid rain. The models assumed acidity was the result of simple titration– Ed Krug showed that the dominant acid inputs were from naturally derived organic acids and the reforestation of the northeast. The acid rain models said we should see recovery in 20 years- we haven’t (why we use 100 years now for model predictions). The role of dissolved organic acids are now admitted but they are now the result of climate change. A cynical scieintist involved with the acid rain study said at its conclusion– there will be no NAPAP for climate change. (And why EPA never did its own study relying on the IPCC instead— too dangerous that the findings were not controllable)

    Climate change is announced to Congress in late 1988. Happer and others are removed from the scene. The “debate is over” is announced in 1991.

    Some things never change.

  81. Great post, Willis!
    Perhaps we should call it “anthropomorphic” global warming–as in “made in our own image”. We look into the inkblot of squiggly lines and we see disaster looming, just as has almost every generation before us. And they were usually right in the past: if it wasn’t a drought or a war it was the Black Death–few generations ever got a free ride for their whole lifetime. We imagine monsters under the bed and bogey men in the alley just in case the real world isn’t scary enough. But that doesn’t mean every nightmare we have is real, just that we are prone to nightmares.

    I would also point out the big difference between the hate mail that some of these people may be getting and the public statements of doom and “denialist” and “traitor” (which your quotes Nick did not actually diminish): those AGW proponents making threats are in charge of GISS (Hansen) or hold public office or have tremendous influence (Gore). Hate mail from the public is not the same, though regrettable. Inhofe made a specific reference to the climategate emails and the violation of FOI rules, and did NOT call all AGW proponents criminals. And Hansen did compare coal cars to Nazi death cars (going to concentration camps). Not the same thing at all.

  82. Yes Nick Stokes, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is doesn’t it?

    But words mean things don’t they?

  83. Absolutely masterful writing. You really should send as a letter to the editor to Science.

  84. From the editorial:
    “Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks.”

    Really? If you think you are an oracle, you had better have all the answers.


  85. Anent suicide for the CRU correspondents….

    Hm. Let me evoke Mencken (by way of his essay “Under the Elms”), with the understanding that where he writes “college presidents,” we read: “AGW fraudsters.”

    “What I’d like to see, if it could be arranged, would be a wave of suicides among college presidents. I’d be delighted to supply the pistols, knives, ropes, poisons and other necessary tools. Going further, I’d be delighted to load the pistols, hone the knives, and tie the hangman’s knots. A college student, leaping uninvited into the arms of God, pleases only himself. But a college president, doing the same thing, would give keen and permanent joy to great multitudes of persons. I drop the idea, and pass on.”

  86. Truman :

    Jones was even celebrating his new-found freedom in emails: “Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness.” Be careful what you wish for, Phil.

    Er … those are not Phil Jones’ words. The mail is TO Jones FROM Graham Haughton, Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen’s ex-boss. You don’t work for Mosher do you?

  87. Very nicely done, however I question the value of responding to Branson’s complaints of mean, threatening comments about and to climate scientists. Persons in controversial or high profile situations will get hate mail and be subject to ad hominem and political attacks. Sad but a reality. Sorry, but they need to toughen up and remember the “sticks and stones” adage their mothers taught them.

    Pointing out that the attacks go both ways doesn’t further the discussion, IMHO. Also, misquotes or quotes out of context are so common that you’ll just get tripped up by them. If Nick Stokes’ (May 22, 2010 at 6:13 am) comments are valid, then this is a rathole.

    Thank you as always for your on-the-money contribution. I was at a wedding last weekend where most guests were in cowboy hats and boots. Best wedding I’ve been to, you cowboys know how to talk straight and have a good time!

  88. Roger Carr says:
    May 22, 2010 at 3:57 am

    You did not comment on my favourite line in that editorial, Willis:

    Governments have a vested interest in the success of these assessments, and the stakes are high.

    The sad truth is that we all have a vested interest in the success of these assessments, and the stakes are very, very high …

  89. Pete Olson says:
    May 22, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Wonderful article, an ALMOST error-free use of the English language (rare these days). Might as well make it perfect: “…there are few things that raise peoples’ ire more than knowing that they have been duped and mislead.” Should be ‘misled’. Thanks so much for your wonderful contributions, Willis.

    That’s what I get for staying up until 3 am to finish my thoughts … I’ve changed it, thanks.

    w.

  90. Stuart Huggett says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Thanks Willis, again, for spelling it out so succinctly. Is it unreasonable to hope that the sort of editorial you address here represents some tentative steps ‘backwards’ for the mainstream science press? After all it would be impossible for them to turn right around in one jump – wouldn’t it?

    Hey, Stuart, good to hear from you. As I mentioned, there were several things about the editorial that I found encouraging.

    The AGW supporters are now in a difficult position, in that many of them have taken a very hard-line stand on these questions. So as you point out, they will have to back away from the precipice bit by bit … overall, I am encouraged. After a decade or so of fighting these battles, things seem to be changing for the better.

  91. The debate has become polarized, and the distrust of scientists and their findings extends well beyond climate science. What can be done to repair society’s trust in science? A broader perspective is needed on all sides. — Brooks Hanson

    Sounds like Brooks is blaming skeptics for the “deterioration” of science, rather than scientists themselves. Sorry, Brooks, but your team of charlatans put forth junk science and declared the debate over. Your “scientists” aligned with unscrupulous politicians and preverted science ALL BY YOURSELVES.

    You were asked, begged, pleaded with not to do that. You ignored those pleadings. You ignore them today. Nobody but you and your ilk compromised and dismantled “the rational relation between science and society.”

    The scientific community must recognize that the recent attacks stem in part from its culture and scientists’ behavior.

    No, not “in part”; in the whole. Science shot itself in the foot. Skeptics do not decry the scientific method or the virtues of science. We wish that scientists would actually practice such instead of faking it, hoaxing it, politicizing it, leaching off the taxpayers and tainting the scientific enterprise with trash conjectures and baseless calumny.

    Two little words would help, “I apologize”. People like Brooks Hanson should apologize for preverting science, for promulgating hoaxes, for slander and libel against truth seekers and whistle blowers who have caught junk scientists red-handed. We are not “flat earthers”; you are.

    I demand apologies and penance for the sins of commission by Alarmist scientists. That would be a good place to start, if fences are to be mended and “joint commitments” pursued.

  92. Henry Pool says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:24 am

    … Willis, do you perhaps have a paper that I can use to support my case to the BCC or can I use the material that you summarised for us in congenital climate abnormalities?

    I would suggest the video of Richard Lindzen’s presentation at the Heartland Conference as one of the best summaries to date.

    Regarding my own work, I am in the enviable position of being an amateur scientist. As such, I do not need to worry about “publish or perish”, or about losing my job for my views, or about making a living doing this.

    So I simply cast my thoughts on the electronic winds, in the hopes that they will land on fertile soil and grow. Anyone is welcome to use them as they see fit. I would appreciate credit for them, but that part is not important. In this life I have found that I can accomplish almost anything, as long as I don’t care who gets credit for it …

  93. Pat Moffitt says:
    May 22, 2010 at 9:05 am,

    Thanks for that excellent synopsis. Too bad we didn’t have the internet back then.

  94. So my take-away on this is that because science is characteristically incapable of producing believable and accurate science, I need to adjust my expectations to accept what is achievable from science. That will bring balance to the debate and end the acrimony.

    Unfortunately I am characteristically incapable of making that adjustment.

    What was plan B?

  95. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:39 am

    No, it was a blog post by (I believe) their communications director of India

    Ah yes – however it has been removed and this posted:

    Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about. Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy. … Of course the anti-science brigade on the web has seized on the line in Gene’s post and run with it (and will run and run and run), taken it out of context and run with it some more – it’s what the climate contrarians exist to do.

    Oh, please, surely you can see further than that? Civil disobedience my okole. Why on earth would “civil disobedience” require that they “know where you live” and “know where you work”? The line was not “taken out of context” or “misconstrued”. It was in the context of a virulent rant against people who disagreed with Greenpeace.

    Somebody saying “we know where you work” might possibly be a threat of civil disobedience, I guess they might picket or something.

    But when somebody says “we know where you live”, they are threatening my wife and daughter. The idea that such a threat is talking about civil disobedience doesn’t pass the laugh test. What, they’re going to picket my garden? Get real.

    If you think that the Greenpeace attempt to spin this as “civil disobedience” holds water, you are not following the bouncing ball. If you want to put it into context, put it into the context of all of the other calls, by Greenpeace supporters and others, for trials and jail time and muzzling and loss of jobs and all flavors of revenge against those who are skeptical of the revealed wisdom.

    You are right, Greenpeace took that ugly statement down because of the justifiable furore that erupted … and my kid put back the cookies when she was caught with her hand in the jar.

    You seem to find the Greenpeace retraction significant … me, not so much.

  96. As to the South Dakota Bill, mistakes are often made in bills.
    The last attempt at a military “draft” bill (HR 163/108th) talks about “active duty and reverse” components, in 5 different places. Yes, it says reverse (i.e. backward). The version of HR.163 that came to the floor of the House and was actually voted on, talks of “active duty and reverse” components. I don’t know about you, but I assume that a reverse component would be in charge of retreats and surrenders (sounds French).

  97. Richard North says:
    May 22, 2010 at 5:11 am

    If we don’t know we don’t know it, how is it that we seem to know how much it is that we don’t know we don’t know, if you know what I mean?

    In answer to your question … we don’t know …

  98. Agamemnon believed that he could fix the climate by sacrificing his daughter. His effort was successful and he sailed to Troy, built a large horse, and burned the city.

    However, it is unlikely that the superstitious sacrifices called for by some climate scientists will be nearly as effective. Hansen’s mystical skills seem to be sub-standard, as his global warming protests often get snowed out.

  99. Roger Sowell says:
    May 22, 2010 at 7:59 am

    @Willis, re

    “I find no State (or any other) lawsuits making this claim against climate scientists, although I might have missed them.”

    I do not know whether or not any of the lawsuits allege that “climate change science is a conspiracy.” I rather doubt that they do, as the word “conspiracy” has the legal meaning when used in a lawsuit, that is, the crime of conspiracy has been committed. It would be odd for a civil lawsuit to allege criminal wrongdoing, as crimes may be prosecuted only by, oddly enough, a prosecutor. The word “conspiracy” is not used in the Texas lawsuit.

    Roger, my point was not that there are not lawsuits, there are several, by states and others. My point was that I (like you it seems) couldn’t find any state or other lawsuits alleging a criminal conspiracy by climate scientists, as Brooks Hanson claims.

    It is an interesting thought, though, bring charges under the RICO act … but I digress.

  100. Nick Stokes says:
    May 22, 2010 at 6:13 am

    “Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.”
    No, she said
    “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.”
    The American Meteorological Society is under no obligation to give a Seal of Approval to views that it disagrees with, and there’s no certification issue.
    **************

    That makes no sense. She *did* refer to skeptical forecasters who are certified, and she did advocate to decertify those that “can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change”. She suggested that the AMS should not give them a Seal of Approval.
    Meteorologists are not given a Seal of Approval for life, they are subject to revocation.

  101. Just to show that we are reading carefully:

    In the introduction, Photoshopped image of a polar bear on an “ice flow.” should be ice “floe.”

    Fine piece of writing!

  102. AGW proponents like to accuse their opponents of “conspiracy”. By this they imply that their actions are illicit, immoral, etc. rather than merely organized. By the same token, they deny engaging in a conspiracy themselves. Group-think does not need a formal charter of conspiracy to function. Remember that a fraternity or biker gang has an implicit understanding of who is ok to accept as a new member, just like Jones and his gang understood who had acceptable views, and who was a “loose-cannon”. Like-minded people don’t ever need to have a meeting and decide on their “conspiracy” — they just carry on their life while only associating with those of like mind. How often does anyone imagine, even Nick Stokes, that skeptics received a warm welcome within the IPCC?

  103. Henry@Willis

    “I would suggest the video of Richard Lindzen’s presentation at the Heartland Conference as one of the best summaries to date”

    do you have a link? I think I would need a written paper?
    Your humility is heartwarming to me, and I am sure to everyone, but I like your summary as well and I am sure it will also do well for me here.
    I think it is always good idea to submit two papers, lest they say it is only one opinion.

  104. Brooks Hansen;
    The debate has become polarized, and the distrust of scientists and their findings extends well beyond climate science.>>

    It does? Like some examples maybe? What field of science is it that has cherry picked, twisted, invented and destroyed data in such a fashion? What other field of science has proclaimed its conclusions settled, and that contrary opinion should be illegal? What other branch of science has predicted the end or the world, yet not one single one of its proponents are abandoning their homes to move to the 1% of the world they predict will survive? What other branch of science are we speaking of when we say “beyone climate science”.?

  105. Scientific “Endorsements” Suck!

    The current paranoia about “Man-Made Climate Change” is insanity of the highest order. But, what else do we have to talk about these days.

    Do we, as a species, need to do more with less, be more caring of the consequences of our actions, find better techniques and technologies to do what we want to do so we can continue to procreate more bright little powerful scientists* and stupid little fun loving peasants*? Yes! Yes! Yes! (*the use of Sagan’s quotes -above- inspired that line:-()

    What’s the odds that the current paranoia about AGW will do anything constructive? Something like 13:1 against.
    Where did these odds come from? Only about 500 million people on the planet care anything about Man-Made Climate Change and Pollution and Dwindling Resources and Acid Rain and _(you name it)_ -pro or con. The rest are too concerned about other, more important and immediate things.

    Whenever civilization gets too big and complex and is unable to solve simple problems, it turns to another little vehicle to take peoples’ minds off the subject. It is more likely another GREAT Depression, preceded or followed by another truly GREAT World War is going to occure before any of the issues the Goreistas and Psyentists are concerned about come to pass. Such events have a way of changing everything and they, sometimes, actually level the playing field.

  106. artwest says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:08 am

    OT:
    Plan B: edge quietly out of AGW into something else that will do the same job?

    UN says case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change’

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/21/un-biodiversity-economic-report

    That’s the TEEB Report. It says some good things, but as usual with these kinds of documents, it has to slop over into lunacy like:

    The human-caused (anthropogenic) rate of species extinction is estimated to be 1,000 times more rapid than the “natural” rate of extinction typical of Earth’s long-term history (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b).

    Not.

    Of course, they have to invoke what we might call the “Hanson fallacy”, viz:

    Recent evidence of climate change suggests much faster and deeper impacts than previously predicted …

    And from there it just goes downhill, invoking phantasmic climate caused disasters of all types.

    The TEEB report is referred to as “the Stern Report for the environment”. Given the huge number of flaws that have been revealed in the Stern Report, this might be a perfectly reasonable name …

    To me, this hijacking of the legitimate concern for the environment and for biodiversity by the climate/CO2 hysteria is one of the great tragedies of the century. There are a host of real problems out there — mountains of garbage leaking into water tables, poisons going into rivers, pollutants going into the air, forests being pillaged, species being hunted to extinction for bushmeat, pesticides being overused and improperly applied, and the like. The list is long.

    But because the same people legitimately concerned about these real issues are often so shrill and alarmist about the imaginary terrors and horrors of CO2, the whole question of those very real problems has been badly tainted by association. The damage that this has done and will continue to do is incalculable.

  107. Gary Pearse says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:38 am

    “The main societal challenges—global energy supply, growing the food supply, and improving public health, among others—depend intimately on science, and for this reason society requires a vigorous scientific enterprise. Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained. Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks.”

    Willis, you should have highlighted this too. Global energy supply is the main thing we need for all the benefits of prosperity, sufficient good quality food and good health, and the science that is under discussion here is the very one that is trying to kill off the only sources of energy that are practical and the wealth that is necessary to attain these laudable achievements. …

    Thanks for the interesting analysis of that paragraph, Gary. I was going to highlight one part of it, but it was late and the paper was already long. The part I was going to point to was:

    Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained.

    The issue I was going to raise is that the use of any non-renewable resource is unsustainable in the long run. Eventually, it will all be used up … pursuing the chimera of “sustainability” for these resources is futile. What we will do, as we have done in the past, is either find a replacement, or find a new source.

    In the thirties, there was a big hoorah about the fact that we were running out of magnesium. There were the usual studies and claims of the “magnesium crisis”, and calculations of how long it would take until we ran out. Then in 1941 Dow Chemical Company invented a process to extract magnesium from sea water … problem solved. However, of course extracting magnesium from seawater is no more “sustainable” than extracting it from the earth … but for all practical purposes it is an infinite supply. Curiously, the same thing seems to be true for uranium, the Japanese (who have no domestic fossil fuels) are doing a lot of work in this area.

    (My high school math teacher loved Zeno’s Paradox. This is the idea that you can never actually arrive anywhere, because first you move half way there, then you move half the remaining distance, and then half of the new remaining distance, and so on, so you can never get there.

    He gave us a definition of “for all practical purposes” that involved Zeno. He said “Suppose you put all the boys in the class on one side of the room, and all the girls on the other. Each minute, you have them move half the distance towards the middle of the the room. Of course, Zeno’s Paradox says that they will never get there … but after a fairly short time, they will be close enough for all practical purposes.”

    But I digress … )

  108. Whatever happened to the recognition of the importance of margin of error? The dictum that when measured data all fall within the same margin of error range, the variations have no meaning? The extreme foolishness of extrapolating from 2 points on a curve?

    As far as I am concerned, far too many people in the “scientific community” have forsaken scholarly integrity for the sake of obtaining government funding.

    Thnks, Anthony, for having created such a great site, and the guest contributers such as Willis Eschenbach and many others. Informative, and entertaining as well!

  109. “we know from archaeological and historical records that an unstable climate has disrupted societies.”
    Interesting. So now, instead of simply changing, climate has been “unstable” before, and it is the instability itself, no matter in which direction that has “disrupted societies”.
    We do know that cooling has always placed a hardship upon humanity, in terms of keeping warm, and growing food among other things. But just what disruptions, pray tell, did the change, for example from the Dark Ages to the Medieval Warm period engender? What terrible hardships did that warming place upon humanity? A shortage of swimsuits? Inquiring minds want to know.

  110. Political Junkie says:
    May 22, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Just to show that we are reading carefully:

    In the introduction, Photoshopped image of a polar bear on an “ice flow.” should be ice “floe.”

    Fine piece of writing!

    Good catch, I’ve corrected it. At least I didn’t write “astrology” for “astronomy” …

  111. Kan says:
    May 22, 2010 at 9:22 am

    From the editorial:
    “Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks.”

    Really? If you think you are an oracle, you had better have all the answers.

    Maybe he’s peeked at NOAA’s crystal ball and knows All above, All below.

  112. Henry Pool says:
    May 22, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Henry@Willis

    “I would suggest the video of Richard Lindzen’s presentation at the Heartland Conference as one of the best summaries to date”

    do you have a link? I think I would need a written paper?

    It’s linked to here, along with Anthony’s fine comments.

  113. Excellent article – I agree it should be published in Science. (Would be an interesting confirmation of the sanctity of the peer-review system, too.)

    As to the name calling – it seems to me to be more virulent from the pro-AGW side. Simply calling all those who ask questions ‘deniers’, with its well known connotations, is an excellent example of that virulence.


  114. ImranCan says:
    May 22, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Of all the commentary ever made (by anyone on anyside) ….. I find the most disturbing to be to continual re-assetion that climate change is happening faster than ever predicted. The reason I became interested in this topic in the first place was because I could find very little solid evidence that it was happening at all ….. and that where predictions had been made the observation fell very SHORT of the actual predictions. As pointed out – global warming requires the planet to be warming and it hasn’t for well over a decade (in contradiction to the IPCC 2001 predictions). How can it be happening faster than predicted ? Its beyond me how anyone can state this !

    This flawed assertion (when made by supposed scientists) is really their lowest point.

    I share your bewilderment on how otherwise responsible people can believe so completely in catastrophic warming. The best explanation I’ve come up with is the fact that the “data” these folks rely on as the basis for their beliefs has been skewed. The AGW believers may not even realize that what they believe to be “raw” data has been manipulated to amplify a warming signal. They have built their entire structure of belief systems on top of a bad foundation of faulty data. It shouldn’t be too surprising now to see the entire system come crashing to the ground.

  115. Hans(e)n’s tone is the usual: “Us scientists are only trying to do good things for the planet and people”, when in fact it is more like: ‘Some know-it-all scientists are zealots who can see nothing good in human activity, and have taken it upon themselves to try to radically change how the parasitic human species lives and survives.’

    Not to mention their wide-spread Messiah Complex. “A Messiah complex is a state in which the individual believes themselves to be, or destined to become, the saviour of the particular field, a group, an event, a time period, or in an extreme scenario, the world.

    http://akorra.com/2010/03/03/top-10-bizarre-and-least-understood-mental-illnesses/

  116. David Hoffer, you questioned whether science beyond climate science is being distrusted. I’ll answer you with: Probably any science that is funded by our Government is automatically questionable just based on the past history of Government funded science: Not just climate research, but also Alar, sacchrine, DDT, acid rain, DDT, etc. Now they’ve decided that meats aren’t the villians of high cholesterol, but rather carbohydrates. Now our First Lady is on ‘eat healthy’ kick and wants to controll what we eat. Is there a connection? I don’t know, but I’ve stopped giving Government sources the benefit of the doubt. So yes, science other that climate science is distrusted- justifiably.

  117. In the introduction, Photoshopped image of a polar bear on an “ice flow.” should be ice “floe.”

    However, the background in the pic of the polar bear party would suggest that they’re hanging out on a glacier — which *would* make it an “ice flow”…

  118. Willis Eschenbach: May 22, 2010 at 10:22 am

    In this life I have found that I can accomplish almost anything, as long as I don’t care who gets credit for it …

    Words to live by, Willis.
    (and a stellar post)

    /dr.bill

  119. Smokey says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:25 am,
    “Too bad we didn’t have the internet back then.”

    Smokey- The internet is absolutely the reason climate change has not followed script. Acid rain as sold by the media and NGOs had even less science behind it than climate change- there was simply no outlet to protest and the few that did -sacrificed their careers as a result. I know a lot of “environmental war veterans” that were on the opposite side of EPA that are now very active in the internet push back on climate change. There are many “scores” trying to be settled.
    A great thesis by Wm Anderson “Facts, Fiction and the Fourth Estate” chronicles the media’s failure to report the science of acid rain and the incentives to the media for not reporting.

  120. “…
    Scientists have been barraged by hateful e-mails.
    Barraged by mails? Hey, it’s worse than emails, it’s public calls for action:
    James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity.
    Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors .
    Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible .
    David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed.
    DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals (video).
    Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics.
    Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.
    A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers .
    Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.
    Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers..
    And Greenpeace threatened unspecified reprisals against unbelievers, saying:
    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    And we be many, but you be few.”

    “We thus must move beyond polarizing arguments in ways that strengthen this joint commitment.”

    I’m just a little worried about these guys wanting to
    “bury the hatchet.”: (

  121. The ‘Science’ editorial (which I only have knowledge of from this website, I am not a reader or a subscriber of ‘Science’) says ‘we know from archaeological and historical records that an unstable climate has disrupted societies’. So watt was up with that about ‘anthropogenic’?

  122. Willis: You seem to find the Greenpeace retraction significant … me, not so much.

    But Willis, my point was that you attributed the words to ‘Greenpeace’, without supplying a link, knowing that the organisation had removed them from its website. The post was unwise, but the implication that Greenpeace as an organisation were advocating protest at residential addresses fails the laugh test, GP protestors have only ever visited homes on tw occasions – to install solar panels on the Australian PM’s house and to serve a writ on the fugitive head of Union Carbide] and this blog post crossed a line of acceptable language – Greenpeace themselves concede

    We got this one wrong, no doubt about it. I’m holding up my hands on behalf of the organisation and saying sorry for that.

    yet still you reproduce part of the the post as if it were a Greenpeace communication, and it is the only such example where no link is supplied.

    The cases given to paint a picture of ‘climate sceptics’ being persecuted seems to stretch the language just a tad also, relying as it does on an extraordinarily broad definition of ‘sceptic’, and such unreliable sources as ‘Newsbusters’ the National Post and as Nick Stokes has documented, attributing comments made at blogs, since deleted by the moderators to the blog authors themsleves.

    [BTW - I notice one of your sources has this subhead: 'Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.' advocating violence or merely over-the-top rhetoric?]

    A couple of similarly distasteful blog comments:-

    I imagined listening to this in an auditorium, decked top to toe with Greenpeasce flags & green uniformed supporters, with Mr H wearing a little black moustache & a swept down fringe, thumping the podium & ranting that he’ll give us the world, free of evil oil, coal, gas.

    A commenter likens Jim Hansen to the creator of the holocaust.

    The boy pictured at the beginning is not a teen; he is prepubescent. There is more than a little hint of pedophilia here. (in video trailer for Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Youth’ project)

    A thinly-veiled implication that Al Gore is distributing grossly offensive material.

    Remarks like these would seem to have no place in a sensible debate, yet you can find them on this very discussion board. Perhaps using blog comments to make a case is not such a wise move?

  123. Gentlemen, you cartoonist has been infected by the bacteria globius warmius and is thus suffering severe mental delusions. Polar bears do not eat penguins. Penguins are found at the south pole. Polar bears are found at the north pole. The correct animal to to have the polar bear roast is a seal.

  124. And Greenpeace threatened unspecified reprisals against unbelievers, saying: . . .
    And we be many, but you be few.

    Aye, mateys, it be warmin’ the cockles o’ me heart t’ hear fair use o’ the subjunctive in these unschooled times.

  125. “Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained. Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks”

    This might be more acceptable in slightly different words.
    Our expanding global ecconomy is going to impact on resourses and the environment in very many ways. It is hoped that good science will help to provide answers to many of these challenges and that their objective assesments of possible impacts will provide clear guidance for our governments to stear us well into the rest of the 21st century.

  126. I think we should thank Nick for providing the full quotes. Made a huge difference didnt it?

    Hansen revised:

    Along with hedging their bets by moving gingerly into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread fear about global warming. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to the Climatic Research Unit.

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

  127. Mike D. says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Science shot itself in the foot.

    I would have said not the foot, but higher up and more to the centerline!

  128. Lets see. Accusations of criminal fraud for a bogus chart…. Charge made in 2007
    charge made by a notable commenter.. charge SECONDED by the scientists.

    Note: its a bogus chart. Criminal? idunno, but RC doesnt shy away from making these kinds of charges:

    Ray Ladbury says:
    14 June 2007 at 12:35 PM
    My God! That is at the very least scientific fraud, if not criminal fraud. If you are trying to demonstrate periodicity, any break in the graph invalidates the graph–unless you are excluding an interim period where the effect of interest is not extang, and then you would break the curve as well.
    One of the questions I always have when I confront a denialist argument is whether they know what they are doing is invalid. This leaves no room for doubt, just as Lindzen’s resorting to the canard about warming on other celestial bodies demonstrates his own insincerity.
    The other question I have is why this particular field of inquiry generates such vehemence that denailists feel it’s OK to resort to fraud to win the point. That seems to invalidate the thing I love most about science–the fact that even if we fail or are ultimately proven wrong, the very activity of sincerely trying to find out ennobles us. It is truly the best example of the means justifying the end, whatever that end may be.

    [Response: Indeed - I think one of the strongest indications that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is very solid by now, is the lack of quality and intellectual honesty of the counter-arguments and the lack of credibility of the skeptics personnel. The recent "Swindle" film illustrates that it is impossible to fundamentally question anthropogenic global warming without resorting to manipulated graphs, distortions and omissions of facts and debating tricks that exploit the lack of background knowledge of the lay audience. If there were still serious arguments and reputable scientists that challenge anthropogenic global warming, surely film-makers like Durkin would have found and presented them? stefan]

  129. Coming into this discussion a bit late…
    From the article:

    A broader perspective is needed on all sides.

    What he means is that society should just “move along, because there is nothing to see here.” and let the scientists scare the bejeesuz out of us in privacy (partly meaning no FOI requests, if you please). They do not want the public to have a say, except through their easily manipulated representatives. If the public actually sees through all that is going on, well that will not do – so let’s all go back to the pre-November status quo.

    The main societal challenges—global energy supply, growing the food supply, and improving public health, among others—depend intimately on science, and for this reason society requires a vigorous scientific enterprise.

    VERY LITTLE of the first two of those has much at all to do with “science” as we usually use the term. Once every decade or so a development comes along that enables the energy supply beyond where it was going anyway, but 90% of that “science” is in the engineering, not research. The same holds true for improving public health. It is not just the research that adds to society’s prosperity and well-being; it is much more that someone has taken an idea and made it work in a real-world way, and that is essentially down to engineers. Lots of people are not aware that engineering is actually a part of science; it is called “applied science,” and without it, all the research stays in the ivory towers.

    Yet for every 1,000 bits of discovery along the research road, there are only a handful that ever see their way to improving or maintaining our well being. Most of the ideas are useless to our lives, with all due respect to the researchers and their dedication to their fields. It is the oil companies and their lab and field engineers (and, yes, some research scientists) who make new developments real enough to work for us, the wider society. They do that in such hard-nosed ways as to make most of our heads spin and our blood curdle – testing and searching in often terrible environments for new oil and gas deposits. And all that is done on the dime of the very industries the “best and the brightest” are trying to destroy. But where is the inclusion of the oil industry in their kudos? Or the engineers?

    For an article’s author to claim credit for those engineers who make those things make a difference in our lives is just absolute mendacity. HELL, they don’t even consider engineers to be real scientists – but when it suits them, they will take credit. . . while butt-bumping the engineers and oil industry off stage so the researchers can reap all the applaud.

    All of this applies to the food supply, as well. It is the big ag companies and food processors who spend billions getting improvements to the real world. And it is their “captive” lab scientists who connect the dots and make improvements real. And it is just those companies that are the butt of so much antipathy from the “real” scientists, the ivory tower dudes, whose worlds are not real at all – not without the intermediaries who pick the handful of useful and practical ideas out of the many thousands of papers every year and (with LOTS of money risked) bet on those ideas as being worthwhile.

    This article strongly implies two claims which are not true: That all research is valuable and that no one else is involved with making ideas reality. In fact, the vast majority of their reseaech is pie-in-the-sky and contributes NOTHING.

    Shame on the author.

  130. Rhoda R says:
    May 22, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    David Hoffer, you questioned whether science beyond climate science is being distrusted. I’ll answer you with: Probably any science that is funded by our Government is automatically questionable just based on the past history of Government funded science: Not just climate research, but also Alar, sacchrine, DDT, acid rain, DDT, etc.>>

    Good examples of junk science from government research Rhoda, but not in the same order of magnitude. For every chemical wrongly banned there’s probably an example or two of one that should have been, but hundreds more that were handled correctly. First world countries have the cleanest water, healthiest food, and longest lifes spans in the world and in history, so across the board you have to give them pretty good marks. I got into a lot of trouble decades ago for crying foul over the ozone hole even though I could show on a white board in twenty minutes or so that the holes were supposed to be there in the first place and that the antarctic hole should be a lot bigger than the arctic hole. I also got thrown out of a lecture once for asking the guest speaker why the “acid killed” lakes on his map were north of the industrial centres he was blaming for the problem when the prevailing winds were from the west. This isn’t my first brush with junk science.

    But it is my first brush with junk science that appears to have claimed the bulk of the active researchers in the world, and has been used to justify via a world authority a tax scheme that will transfer wealth to backward despotic regimes at the expense of devastating the world economy. I don’t know if DDT was junk science or not. I do know that the likes of Robert Mugabe didn’t have their hands out demanding payment as part of the solution.

  131. It is good to be reminded yet again of the barely suppressed desire for violence that underpins Greenpeace

    Regards

    Michael

  132. Oh, hell, I was so eager to post that last that the very next sentence I failed to include.

    From the article:

    Our expanding global economy is taxing resources and the environment in ways that cannot be sustained. Science provides a deep understanding of these impacts and, as a result, the ability to predict consequences and assess risks.

    Paul Ehrlich redux.

    We all know how wrong Ehlrich was with his Malthusianism. According to Ehlrich, we should all be starving and huddled around fires in barrels below the Brooklyn Bridge with the other homeless and starving people. On the contrary, the US prosperity of the 1970s has spread over great parts of many, many other countries, even what then were third world countries like Viet Nam, Malaysia and China.

    And that last sentence completely summarizes Ehrlich’s arguments in the 1970s – that we, the public, are ignorant and can’t understand without the high priests to interpret for us “what it all means.”

    If there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that predictions of doom are missing great swaths of factors that will become clear only in the years to come. Even now, steps are being taken to ameliorate the scenarios of the Malthusians. And each of those step will involve the efforts of thousands upon thousands.

    Humans DO have a tremendous capacity – to improve, to adapt, to apply, and to do much more than merely survive. The ivory tower dudes don’t partake enough of “society” to get their fingers on the pulse. I consider myself proud to be a member of a society that can feed well more than twice what the population was when Ehrlich wrote of the doom to come.

    Heck, if no other great developments have come along, look at how much more ethnic foods we have available on our restaurants now! Every time I eat in one, I thank the heavens for letting me be alive in this time and place.

  133. Henry Pool says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:24 am

    I don’t know what to do anymore with TV and radio stations and newspapers that continuously refer to “global warming caused by carbon dioxide” and then never allow anyone to speak who considers such a statement to be factually incorrect.
    I think I will initiate a complaint at the broadcast complaints commision (BCC) here if I hear once more someone saying or stating – as a matter of fact – that global warming is caused by releasing carbon dioxide – and I will maintain that the basis of my complaint is that the station/newspaper refuses to adhere to the principle of balanced reporting, i.e. hearing the other side. I think the BCC here is quite strict on that code….
    _______________________________________________________
    Henry, it was already done right after climategate. Do a search here at WUWT to see what happen (nothing)

  134. @Phil Clarke
    ‘as if it were a Greenpeace communication,’

    But it were a Greenpeace communication, even GP themselves took the blame because anyone who works for an organization and in that capacity makes an official claim for that organization essentially makes that organization liable for that claim. Pretty simple. For instance that is why BP now is liable for what ever negative-to-BP claim people working for BP has made.

    Double standards doesn’t suite.

  135. Nice post, Willis.

    We know, they don’t know.

    They know, what they know.

    I don’t know, wish I did.

    Know body knows.

    Knowing, it appears, is not the same as knowing.

    I know, this thread is getting serious.


  136. Vuk etc provides a video clip of an episode in an aquarium, where the proprietors had been noting that certain of their selachimorphid species had been disappearing overnight. So they set up surveillance cameras, and found that an octopus in the tank had shown an unanticipated nocturnal proclivity for doing a bit of reverse-Jaws work on Peter Benchley’s “perfect eating machine.”

    Well, pish and tosh. Any American of average perceptive capacity can tell you all about spineless, prehensile creatures that kill and devour everything around them.

    They’re called a government.

  137. Steven Mosher: re your link

    “discussed ethical issues in how one should allocate global warming permits across the world”.

    This kind of thinking should worry everyone. Thanks for the post.

  138. RockyRoad says:
    May 22, 2010 at 6:24 am
    Ponder this tidbit when considering the planetary impact on climate: Earth is supersonic at the equator. Say what? Rotating once every 24 hours with a circumference of 24,901 miles gives a rotational velocity just over 1,000 mph. Sure, it doesnt seem like the earth is traveling anywhere near that fast when standing there (and Im bending the definition of supersonic for emphasis), but perception is quite often very different from undeniable fact.
    Also consider that just a quarter of the planet away (at each pole) the earths orbital velocity is essentially zero. No wonder earths predominant fluid and gas are in motion.

    There is a great deal more to this area such as centrifugal force and measurements of speed going to the core of this planet, the division of atmosheric forces at the equator.
    Part of planetary mechanics.

  139. Excellent post, Willis….as an aside….I wish people would stop mis-spelling climate scientists….it should be “scienTWITS” (except the fraudsters are laughing all the way to the bank)

  140. Congratulations Willis! That was an outstanding rebuttal. You sorely outdid a, supposed, professional editor at his own game.

    Brooks Hanson’s piece was a blatant attempt to “call off the dogs,” now that the informed world knows that Al Gore, James Hansen, the UN, the IPCC & the myriad of other alarmists, have been found out.

    Hanson’s thesis seems to be “can’t we all get along!?” If Science & it’s editorial board want to really fix the current corrupt climate science atmosphere, they need to do more than just “hide the decline” in their behavior & stop suggesting we move on.

    When Hanson wrote about we may have “underestimated the pace of climate change,” I thought there is no hope for these people, this will never end, they will never change!

  141. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 4:39 am

    “…….Looks like he was right there. I am not sure that representing a disowned and deleted blog post as an official Greenpeace statement advances the argument very far. Speaking of advancing the argument in a cool rational way, here is Viscount Monckton, keynote speaker at the recent ICCC conference, and the Republican choice for witness at the recent congressional hearings, writing about Mann et al.

    These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical
    manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than “global warming” will ever kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

    Nice.”
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Unfortunately Viscount Monckton is correct. WHY do I say that??? In one word – FOOD. This CAGW fraud is ALREADY killing people! Modern farming is completely dependent on oil for fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, mechanized farming equipment and transport of food to market. Worse thanks to NAFTA and WTO peasant farmers in third world countries have been driven bankrupt by cheep subsidized US and EU grain coupled with WTO free market and no tariffs. 75% of the farmers in Mexico have left the land. Farmers in India are committing suicide at the rate of one every 8 hours. National “food sovereignty” has been removed from many countries thanks to WTO and the World Bank/IMF SAPs (see below)

    Now governments are converting food into fuel and want to tax the heck out of oil. The 1996 US farm act did away with the US government grain reserve program. By 2008 the “cupboard was bare” according to the USDA .

    “Using United Nations global poverty statistics as a base, it is now clear that United States and European Union biofuel policies will significantly contribute to the early, avoidable deaths of between 10 and 20 million people in the year 2008 alone.”
    The Great Biofuel Famine

    Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply

    Food Security, Farming, CAFTA and the WTO

    Structural Adjustment Policies

    History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

    Now tell me again why you think Viscount Monckton is incorrect.

  142. Thanks again Willis… I am not sure where you find the time. Hmm perhaps if I wasn’t computer gaming >.>

  143. I thought the Greenpeace manifesto was best summarised by their lead PR person, Agent Smith:

    Smith does need to work on his people skills somewhat IMHO.


  144. davidmhoffer (one of the wittiest and most perceptive posters and bloggers to have come to my attention in the glorious six months since Climategate broke) writes of “junk science.”

    That term first came to my attention back in the ’80s, and I rely for most of my appreciation of the subject on Peter Huber’s Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (1991).

    (It should be noted that Mr. Huber was earlier the author of Liability:The Legal Revolution & Its Consequences [1988], a treatise that belongs on the bookshelf of every physician in America, and should be used vigorously and repeatedly to pound the rostral knob of every judge and attorney malpracticing in these United States. Pertinent to the readers on this forum, he is also the co-author of The Bottomless Well: The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy [2005]. I recommend his pre-Climategate article “The Carbon Con Game” [15 October 2009] and his post-Climategate piece “Science on the Potomac” [31 December 2009], both published in Forbes.)

    The definitions of junk science, however, seem to me to be overly broad. Mr. Huber himself – in his 1991 book – conceived “real science” to be (in the words of one reviewer) that which had been “…published in scientific journals, scrutinized by peers, reproduced by rivals, agreed to by consensus. The kind of science that may not ultimately be right, but is the best that human minds can do at the time.”

    Well, we’ve all seen – courtesy of the confirmations found in the Climategate infodump – what happens when charlatans get control of the scientific journals, and make sure that the scrutiny of peers is subverted. They get to control “the consensus,” with the result that we get “real science” that correlates with factual reality to precisely the same extent as phrenology, astrology, and Dianetics.

    I suggest instead that we look at the anthropogenic global warming fraud as Cargo Cult Science, which was decried by Richard Feynman (1974) “…because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”

    What is that essential?

    “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    “In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”

    Does this or does this not sound like something that ought to be engraved in pica on a piece of sheet steel, folded until it’s all corners, and then shoved briskly up Dr. Michael Mann’s alimentary tract?

    Therefore I suggest that “junk science” be abandoned as an expression. The AGW cabal, through their chokehold upon scientific publishing and their perversion of peer review, did their concerted and deliberate best to make challenges to their hoakum look like “junk science,” didn’t they?

    Better we maintain specificity. For this purpose, Feynman’s superb concept – Cargo Cult Science – stands the test, and should be employed henceforth.

    Besides, as I’ve made use of it over the past six months, it drives the warmists right to hellangone up the wall.

  145. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Monckton called for Mann to be prosecuted for fraud, not for voicing is opinions.

    He stated Mann et al are guilty of genocide. If you have hard evidence of fraud you should present it to Penn State U. [or just post it here]. His scientific conduct has, of course, been investigated and no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been found.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    You forgot, Mann is STILL under investigation and very interesting stuff is coming to light too. Also “Britain’s top statistician recently blasted Mann for exaggerating the size of global warming. “

  146. jcrabb says:
    May 22, 2010 at 7:28 am

    @pettyfog

    Did you notice that Willis mentioned Arctic sea ice was returning to normal, which clearly is not the case.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    The sea Ice in the Arctic was within one standard deviation of the average this winter. To any one with an understanding of statistics there is no difference between the average and plus or minus 2 standard deviations on either side of the average, therefore Willis is technically correct.

  147. jorgekafkazar says:
    May 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Hans(e)n’s tone is the usual: …

    The author of the editorial is Brooks Hanson, not Hansen.

  148. DirkH says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Oh, and Nick inspired me to search a little on Greenpeace’s website, our “entirely peaceful friends”, and looky here, a nice pic of the Koch brothers western-style:

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/dirty-money-climate-30032010/

    “Wanted for crimes against the climate: Charles and David Koch. ”

    You don’t have to invent it. Greenpeace delivers all the ammo one can need themselves.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    AHHhhh, excuse me but who the heck are Charles and David Koch, and Oh yeah, where do I go to pick up my check for advancing “climate change denial” ROTFLMAO

  149. Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:22 am

    “In this life I have found that I can accomplish almost anything, as long as I don’t care who gets credit for it”

    Someone else said – Well said Willis – I will endorse the remark.

    If only more people could work and live by this credo. It works for me, getting others to take the credit is a sure fire way to get traction.

    Regards

    H

  150. Enneagram says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Who were/are the original promoters/funders of the Global Warming/Climate change fraud?. Are they still pushing the same agenda?. Why?. What is it so important behind it?
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Banks and Big oil. I kid you not. In a word David Rockefeller who was behind Maurice Strong. Strong went to work for the Rockefeller’s in Saudi Arabia in 1953 as a poor chigh school dropout. Shortly there after he ended up as a big wheel in Canadian oil. Quite a jump for a young man.

    The whole Global warming/environmental movement traces back to the first UN Earth Summit in 1972, when Strong paid for Greenpeace to attend along with a bunch of other young activists. He gave them a pep talk about pollution, global warming , CFC and the ozone hole and then told them to “go home and raise hell”

    You can see where it comes from with Kissenger’s 1970 statement “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.” Some consider Kissinger a Rockefeller frontman

    The idea is even better expressed here:
    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

    – Richard Haass, Club of Rome Document

    Strong and Rockefeller are of course Club of Rome members.

    It is forty years later and we have:
    1. Control oil and you control nations; CHECK – “CAGW”
    2. Control food and you control the people; CHECK – WTO Agreement on Agriculture, 80% of the food supply controlled by ten corporations, most of them private, International Patenting of seed and animals, 75% of Mexican farmers removed from their land….
    3. Control money and you control the world; CHECK Replace US and other countries gold standard currency with fiat currency, cause an economic crisis, form the Financial Stability Board with International control over the financial institutions of various countries and get Obama to agree to it….

    Yeah, right I am a conspiracy nut, but I suggest you spend a week or two checking out what I said first before you form that opinion.

  151. Steven, Willis mis-quoted. The correct statements are debatable, but there’s no point in debating what people didn’t say.

    And the difference is substantial. Both Hansen and RK spoke of prosecuting firms that have been responsible for putting large amounts of CO2 in the air, which they believe is harmful to humanity. You may think it isn’t, but if it is accepted that it is, legal consequences are normally considered. That’s different to prosecuting people who express sceptic views.

    It’s now true (with exemptions) that putting large amounts of DDT in the environment will get you prosecuted. There are no sanctions on those (sceptics) who express the view that DDT is not harmful, and none are proposed.


  152. Gail Combs writes perceptively of the fact that the warmists’ campaign against the combustion of petrochemicals has resulted in declines in the availability (and therefore increases in the prices) of foodstuffs all over the world.

    This is most grievous in those areas of the world where people are the poorest, and closest to the brink of starvation. Literally, the AGW fraudsters have been killing people, and they’re intent upon killing hundreds of millions more.

    Congratulations. These bastiches are preserving our descendants from drowning in the supposedly rising oceans. They’re knocking ‘em off today, by way of kwashiorkor in infancy, marasmus in childhood, and general protein-calorie malnutrition if they survive past the age of puberty. Not to mention the wealth of infectious diseases that carry off people of any age who can’t keep their plasma albumin levels above the lower threshold of normal.

    But Gail Combs fails her saving roll against sanity when she complains that

    “…thanks to NAFTA and WTO peasant farmers in third world countries have been driven bankrupt by cheep subsidized US and EU grain coupled with WTO free market and no tariffs. 75% of the farmers in Mexico have left the land. Farmers in India are committing suicide at the rate of one every 8 hours. National ‘food sovereignty’ has been removed from many countries thanks to WTO and the World Bank/IMF SAPs?

    Yep. And think about all those buggywhip manufacturers who were driven to suicide by Henry Ford and all those other automobile manufacturers.

    Why should Gail Combs – an otherwise sensible person – suddenly blow chunks by stumping for autarky in the guise of “National ‘food sovereignty’“? Is she unfamiliar with the discussion of the benefits of trade voiced by Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations ?

    If the taxpayers of these United States (and Canada, and Argentina, and other high-productivity farming nations) have been conned into subsidizing Big Agribusiness – and that we surely have, courtesy predominantly of the Republican faction of America’s big, bipartisan, wanna-be-permanently-incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party – should not the people of the poorer nations be allowed to take advantage of this idiocy, and buy more cheaply the feed corn, wheat, barley, rice, and derivatives of this bounty, instead of being constrained by tariffs and quotas to pour their life’s blood into the pockets of farmers who happen to be their countrymen?

    Every tariff, folks, is a measure designed to screw the consumer. Always has been that way, always will. Good heavens, if you want to consider the real cause of America’s “Civil War” (which was not a civil war in any way whatsoever), look to the Republicans’ hideous Morrill Tariff, which was structured to impose fully 80% of the revenue burden of the federal government at that time upon the people of the southern and midwestern agricultural states.

    Damn. No wonder Ohio teetered on the brink of secession through much of the early part of that war of violent aggression on the part of the northern magnates. They were being screwed just as viciously as their countrymen in the south.

    Bear in mind that Ft. Sumter was a customs collection point designed to choke traffic into and out of Charleston Harbor, the busiest port in South Carolina, which was, in turn, not only the first state to secede but the polity with fifth largest economy in the world at that time, and all over the northern mercantilist states there was a clamor for violent enforcement of the Morrill Tariff against the southern and northwestern rural populations. Take a good look into Lincoln’s first inaugural address, in which he states:

    “In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

    In other words, “pay the Morrill Tariff, you surly brutes, or there will be bloodshed and violence!”

    Just a little example to clarify the real meaning of tariffs. Everybody sees the glazier fixing the broken bakeshop window, and forgets about every goddam thing else.

    People in poor countries need access to cheaper foodstuffs. If farmers in India are committing suicide because they can’t get a living out of their endlessly-parceled-out-to-succeeding-generations-of-sons clapped-out agricultural lands, that’s all sad ‘n stuff, but how the hell does preventing the rest of the people in India from coming within reach of a decent meal do any good whatsoever?

    Tariffs and quotas and “National ‘food sovereignty’.”

    Pfaugh!

  153. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Willis:

    You seem to find the Greenpeace retraction significant … me, not so much.

    But Willis, my point was that you attributed the words to ‘Greenpeace’, without supplying a link, knowing that the organisation had removed them from its website. The post was unwise, but the implication that Greenpeace as an organisation were advocating protest at residential addresses fails the laugh test, GP protestors have only ever visited homes on tw occasions – to install solar panels on the Australian PM’s house and to serve a writ on the fugitive head of Union Carbide] and this blog post crossed a line of acceptable language – Greenpeace themselves concede

    We got this one wrong, no doubt about it. I’m holding up my hands on behalf of the organisation and saying sorry for that.

    yet still you reproduce part of the the post as if it were a Greenpeace communication, and it is the only such example where no link is supplied.

    You are right, I didn’t supply a link, I added the info at the end of writing it all and I didn’t notice that. So send protestors to my house …

    You say that Greenpeace advocating protests at someone’s house “doesn’t pass the laugh test” … then you give us an example of it happening. How does that work? I didn’t find it funny at all.

    Here’s another Greenpeace action …

    On the 30th of August, my ship was entering Long Point Bay on Lake Erie, heading for Nanticoke to unload coal. At about 7:30 am, we received a radio transmission from a Greenpeace ship, who informed us that they were going to peacefully protest the fact that we were carrying coal to be burned at a generating station. At around 8 am, with no warning, a Zodiac pulled alongside us, while we were still underway, someone on board it threw a boarding ladder over our rails, and before we could react, two activists scaled the ladder and chained themselves to our unloading boom.

    Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/hall-fame/123952-meaning-peaceful-protest.html#post2307095#ixzz0oiGn86Ue

    These guys live on the ship, it is their home, and that means nothing to the Greenpeace folks. As a longtime commercial fisherman, I can assure you that a boat is private property, and is the home for the folks living aboard. But that means nothing to Greenpeace, they illegally storm boats all the time. Doesn’t always go well, though …

    A Greenpeace activist was yesterday beaten by fishermen as she tried to board two boats, moored at Grand Harbour, in search of illegally fished blue fin tuna.

    An inspection by the Fisheries Control Division after the police had calmed the situation did not yield any illegal stocks of bluefin tuna, a breed that may be depleted within three years if overfishing continues.

    What was meant to have been a peaceful protest staged by the international environmental group took a violent turn when Australian Emma Briggs was pulled by the hair, punched and thrown overboard from the Spanish fishing support vessel Cabo Tinoso Dos.

    The 39-year-old later tried to get on the Maltese vessel Santina, which was moored next to the Spanish boat, but was again beaten by the fishermen as Greenpeace protested against unsustainable fishing activities.

    A video taken by Greenpeace showed the fishermen hitting Ms Briggs as they swore while one of them shouted “hit her, hit her” in Maltese. She suffered a black eye and bruises to her neck and head but was not seriously injured.

    Greenpeace international oceans campaigner François Provost said: “We were just trying to carry out an inspection on the boats”.

    However, the secretary of the Federation of Maltese Aquaculture Producers, John Refalo, said when contacted that, while he did not condone violence, had the activists asked to go aboard they might have been allowed to do so.

    So when Greenpeace says “We know where you work, we know where you live, we are many and you are few”, I take it seriously.

    And yes, Greenpeace backed down as the result of a storm of protest. Perhaps that impresses you, but backing down when people are outraged by your actions merely means that your actions were outrageous.

    Finally, it was a Greenpeace communication, done by one of their employees on their web site.

    Next, you find fault with a few of my examples … but you neglect to mention Jim Hansen, arguably the most visible supporter of the AGW hypothesis, calling for some skeptics to be put on trial. You don’t discuss Suzuki, the best known Canadian AGW supporter, calling for skeptics to be jailed. That has not been atypical of AGW comments, not on blogs, but by people like Hansen and Suzuki and other prominent folks. You want to get outraged now? Where was your outrage when they were saying those things?

    And Hanson wants us to feel sorry for the poor scientists who have gotten abusive emails? Bro’, I’ve been called every name in the book, it comes with the territory. If the scientists can’t stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I don’t agree with sending vitriolic emails, but going over the line to make a case that we should deprive the third world of inexpensive energy means hundreds of thousands of deaths … a little outrage over that, while reprehensible, is certainly understandable. And publicly calling for your scientific opponents to be tried and jailed is absolutely inexcusable, it is orders of magnitude worse than the nasty emails that they might get in response.

  154. ShrNfr says:
    May 22, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Gentlemen, your cartoonist has been infected by the bacteria globius warmius and is thus suffering severe mental delusions. Polar bears do not eat penguins. Penguins are found at the south pole. Polar bears are found at the north pole. The correct animal to to have the polar bear roast is a seal.

    Climate change forced them to change their habitat ..

  155. Rich Matarese says:
    May 22, 2010 at 9:46 am


    Anent suicide for the CRU correspondents….

    Hm. Let me evoke Mencken (by way of his essay “Under the Elms”), with the understanding that where he writes “college presidents,” we read: “AGW fraudsters.”….
    ___________________________________________________________
    But are the two really any different?

  156. davidmhoffer says:
    May 22, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Brooks Hansen;
    The debate has become polarized, and the distrust of scientists and their findings extends well beyond climate science.>>

    It does? Like some examples maybe? What field of science is it that has cherry picked, twisted, invented and destroyed data in such a fashion? What other field of science has proclaimed its conclusions settled, and that contrary opinion should be illegal? What other branch of science has predicted the end or the world, yet not one single one of its proponents are abandoning their homes to move to the 1% of the world they predict will survive? What other branch of science are we speaking of when we say “beyond climate science”.?
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Actually a couple of days ago a medical doctor commented on this site about how twisted ‘peer-reviewed” medical science now is thanks to the funding coming from the big medical houses. Another example of money, power, greed and a hidden agenda corrupting science.

    Unfortunately hidden agenda plus money usually wins over honesty. If you are not a “team player” you are too dangerous and find yourself out the door and perhaps blackballed to boot. That goes in any field of science not just climate science.

  157. #
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 22, 2010 at 11:54 am

    …..To me, this hijacking of the legitimate concern for the environment and for biodiversity by the climate/CO2 hysteria is one of the great tragedies of the century.

    But because the same people legitimately concerned about these real issues are often so shrill and alarmist about the imaginary terrors and horrors of CO2, the whole question of those very real problems has been badly tainted by association. The damage that this has done and will continue to do is incalculable.”
    __________________________________________________________________________
    It is actually worse than that. Not only are funds that could have been used for research into this problems diverted into nonsense psyience but we have a whole new generation of researchers learning to do shoddy work like the Lake Tanganyika study.“Just blame Global Warming and do not bother to actually LOOK for the real factors involved” This s the new method being taught.


  158. Damn, I hate HTML errors. What should have been submitted above was:

    Every tariff, folks, is a measure designed to screw the consumer. Always has been that way, always will. Good heavens, if you want to consider the real cause of America’s “Civil War” (which was not a civil war in any way whatsoever), look to the Republicans’ hideous Morrill Tariff, which was structured to impose fully 80% of the revenue burden of the federal government at that time upon the people of the southern and midwestern agricultural states.

    Damn. No wonder Ohio teetered on the brink of secession through much of the early part of that war of violent aggression on the part of the northern magnates. They were being screwed just as viciously as their countrymen in the south.

    Bear in mind that Ft. Sumter was a customs collection point designed to choke traffic into and out of Charleston Harbor, the busiest port in South Carolina, which was, in turn, not only the first state to secede but the polity with fifth largest economy in the world at that time, and all over the northern mercantilist states there was a clamor for violent enforcement of the Morrill Tariff against the southern and northwestern rural populations. Take a good look into Lincoln’s first inaugural address, in which he states:

    “In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

    In other words, “pay the Morrill Tariff, you surly brutes, or there will be bloodshed and violence!”


    And so did Lincoln – “The American Lenin” – arrange things.

    As for Karl Marx’s argument that the Morrill Tariff only succeeded the secession of the southern states, be it observed that this piece of legislative legerdemain had been in train for years prior to the break in 1861, and the people of the southern and midwestern states had seen it coming. Lincoln, in fact, was nominated in Chicago’s convention by the Republicans because he was – in the words of one political wheelhorse, “a good Clay Whig” (meaning an adherent of Henry Clay’s “American Sustem” of protectionism, pork, and currency debauchment; see the movie Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) for that famous stump speech quotation which expressed Lincoln’s lifelong adherence to the Whigs’ predatory intentions).

    The people of the southern states knew good and goddam well what was coming when Lincoln got elected. No wonder they determined to throw down their cards and leave the crooked game that had been set up to pillage them.

  159. REPLY: Someday we should all show up at Hoggan’s office with protest signs and cream pies. ;-) – Anthony ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Thank you , Anthony. It is a great idea, but I would much rather just continue playing out more rope for them. They are dancing around now like my 6 year old when he has to pee.

  160. ShrNfr says:
    May 22, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Gentlemen, you cartoonist has been infected by the bacteria globius warmius and is thus suffering severe mental delusions. Polar bears do not eat penguins. Penguins are found at the south pole. Polar bears are found at the north pole. The correct animal to to have the polar bear roast is a seal.
    __________________________________________________________________
    And you have no sense of the ridiculous. Given that the original Ice floe came photo-shopped with either a penguin OR a polar bear the cartoon is very very appropriate.

  161. Maybe “astrology” is more appropriate than “astronomy” given that the first is rather more based on models than actual real world observations. Bit like AGW climate science.

  162. My neighbor asks me if it’s true that Greenland is melting.
    I thought about it, and replied:
    If Greenland melts, and we continue to freeze here in N. Calif., the name of the next big TV show will be
    Who Wants to be a Viking, with your host, Regis Philbin.

  163. Nigel Harris says:
    May 22, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Current 15 year period of neither warming nor cooling.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:180/plot/uah/last:180/trend

    ____________________________________________________________________
    You forgot the error bars: see A J Strata in his analysis of error in temperature measurements stated:
    “…I am going to focus this post on two key documents that became public with the recent whistle blowing at CRU. The first document concerns the accuracy of the land based temperature measurements, which make up the core of the climate alarmists claims about warming. When we look at the CRU error budget and error margins we find a glimmer of reality setting in, in that there is no way to detect the claimed warming trend with the claimed accuracy….”

  164. Nick,

    I fail to see any relevant difference here:

    “James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity.”
    No he didn’t (and your link is wrong). He said:
    ” Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    These CEO’s are climate skeptics. Willis said that hansen suggest that ‘climate skeptics’ be put on trial.

    Am I to take your defense of Hansen to be this.

    Hansen didnt say climate skeptic, he said CEO who spreads doubt about global warming? Is your defense that hansen knows these men are spreading doubt when they believe that AGW is a danger? Are you saying he knows they believe C02 to be really harmful. I’ll put it this way. Your quote about hansen made a better case against him. He is claiming to know what these men think and believe. motive hunting in the worst fashion. he is misrepresenting their motive toward alternative fuels.. So not only is he saying that skeptics ( in this case CEOs) should be put on trial he is doing so on the basis of his esp.

    Hint. nobody is AWARE of the long term consequences. We have predictions of what those consequences may or may not be but nobody is AWARE of those consequences. Now, if I had been a car wreck after driving fast, I would be aware of the dangers of driving fast. But no reasonable person can argue that we are aware of the consequences of climate change. Tobacco companies of course were aware of the dangers of smoking.

  165. Gail Combs;
    If you are not a “team player” you are too dangerous and find yourself out the door and perhaps blackballed to boot. That goes in any field of science not just climate science.>>

    That goes in any corporation, professional society, volunteer society, political party, any group of people large enough to have “teams” to play on and goals to pursue. This climate science thing is, in my opinion, in a league of itz own.


  166. Willis Eschenbach takes note of an episode in which a Greenpeace “activist,” upon boarding – uninvited and against the wishes of the crews – two fishing boats in Malta’s Grand Harbour, got pummeled and chucked overboard.

    I take greatest interest in the quotation in the article cited by Willis

    “Greenpeace international oceans campaigner François Provost said: ‘We were just trying to carry out an inspection on the boats’.”

    Hm? Just what lawful authority has any member of Greenpeace to enter upon the private property of anyone in order “…to carry out an inspection“?

    Do these people now conceive themselves to be the Green Police?

  167. Joe says:
    May 22, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    There is a great deal more to this area such as centrifugal force and measurements of speed going to the core of this planet, the division of atmosheric forces at the equator.

    No such thing as centrifugal force. Now, if you were to talk about centripetal force ….

  168. Rich Matarese says:
    May 22, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    ….But Gail Combs fails her saving roll against sanity when she complains that

    “…thanks to NAFTA and WTO peasant farmers in third world countries have been driven bankrupt by cheap subsidized US and EU grain coupled….
    ___________________________________________________________________

    I would agree with you except for one minor detail. Think about how a big corporation operates. I saw it in action a couple of years ago.

    Podunk Feed, a Mom & Pop outfit, supplies feed to to the town of Podunk. Big Ag Feed wants the business. They build a nice new store and price their feed below Podunk Feed. For a year they go head to head with Podunk Feed until Podunk bankrupts and closes its doors. A few months later Big Ag Feed starts jacking up their prices until they are the highest priced feed store in the general area, but now you have to travel fifty miles to get a better price. This is a true story and is exactly what is happening world wide.

    I have no problem with modern farm methods or competition, I do have a problem with a deliberate attempt to get a food monopoly with the intent of jacking up the prices at a later date. Dan Amstutz was VP of Cargill. He wrote the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in 1995 and the 1996 Farm Act that eliminated the USDA grain stores. This combined with the recent biofuel legislation lead to “the cupboard is bare” in 2008, starvation, food riots and record profits for Cargill and Monsanto.

    The following quotes show the grain traders level of concern for other humans.

    “In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html

    “Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf

    “Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed ideas and goals of NAEGA membership… The Amstutz Award is given by the North American Export Grain Association in honor of Dan Amstutz and in recognition of his outstanding and extraordinary service to the export grain and oilseed trade from the United States. Appropriately, the first recipient of this distinguished service award was Mr. Amstutz.” http://www.naega.org/amstutz/index.shtml

    This is the type of monopoly I am talking about:
    * 60 percent of terminal grain handling facilities are owned by four companies: Cargill, Cenex Harvest States, ADM and General Mills.

    * 82 percent of corn exporting is concentrated in three companies: Cargill, ADM and Zen Noh.

    * Beef packing is dominated by an 81 percent share among four companies: Tyson, ConAgra, Cargill and Farmland Nation.

    * 61 percent of flour milling capacity is owned by four companies: ADM, ConAgra, Cargill and General Mills.
    Statistics from FAO

    Now combine that with new “food Safety” bills that effectively prevent a land owner from raising his own food. One bill HR 875 states this:
    “in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”

    The Commerce Clause: A farmer growing wheat for his own use “The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce” The Supreme court found against the farmer. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

    Therefore by invoking the Commerce Clause, any food bill will regulate ALL food grown in the USA, even that in home gardens.

    Do you really want ten privately owned corporations to OWN the world food supply??? As far as I am concerned I am hoping Mr. Amstutz is now finding his just reward in the nine circles of Dante’s Inferno.

    Even Bill Clinton now acknowledges treating food as a commodity was a mistake.
    Bill Clinton Admits Global Free Trade Policy has Forced Millions Of People into Poverty.

    “Today’s global food crisis shows we all blew it, including me when I was president, by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world’s poor, Bill Clinton has told a UN gathering.

    Clinton took aim at decades of international policymaking by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others, encouraged by the US, that pressured Africans in particular into dropping government subsidies for fertiliser, improved seed and other farm inputs, in economic “structural adjustments” required to win northern aid. Africa’s food self-sufficiency subsequently declined and food imports rose.

    “Food is not a commodity like others,” Clinton said. “We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themselves.”

    A more recent comment by Bill Clinton:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html

  169. Son of a gun, now we have polar bears in the antarctic eating fricaseed penguin. Amaaaazing. :-)

  170. There are 10.6 million blogs hosted on WordPress. There are 350,000 new blog posts on WordPress daily. Every day, WordPress.com posts a ranking of the top 100 individual posts (new or old), judged according to their secret formula.

    This post is now number 10 on the WordPress Blog of the Day site. My thanks to all who have commented to date, and I invite other interested people to add their ideas.

    Finally, my great appreciation to Anthony Watts for his amazing site. To me, this is science at its finest, where ideas flow freely, no valid comments are censored, and claims are made and shot down at a rate of knots. Half of science is making claims, and the other half is falsifying those claims. This site excels at both.

  171. On a not-completely-irrelevant note, according to a Guardian article (linked at Morano’s ClimateDepot) the UN, watching the IPCC go down the drain after trying unsuccessfully Global Warming and Ocean Acidification, is now getting ready to push Species Extinction and Habitat Preservation.

    This after the atmosphere of Kyoto has utterly destroyed millions of hectares of countryside and habitat with enormous and utterly useless wind plants in Europe, the UK, North America, Australia, and even New Zealand. “Come along, boys, we’ve got to get a winner one day …”

  172. Hey could it be that the spitted penguin the polar bears in the picture are roasting goes by the name TUX, if so I definitely smell a Redmond funded MS conspiracy brewing here -:)

  173. Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 22, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    “This post is now number 10 on the WordPress Blog of the Day site.”

    And deservedly so. Another excellent post by you. That graphic of how little the baby science of global climatology actually does know puts it all into perspective.

    And very encouraging that so many people are reading this post and this site in general. I could not agree with you more when you wrote:

    “Finally, my great appreciation to Anthony Watts for his amazing site.”

  174. Steven mosher says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Climate Skeptics really didn’t do a whole lot of damage. The damage to AGW Alarmism was self-inflicted.
    They allowed emotion to overrule good sense, and fools rushed in where wise men never go.
    Had the AGW side played it on the nonchalant side, they wouldn’t be looking like saps in the public eye, out on a limb.

  175. Nick Stokes: May 22, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    Both Hansen and RK spoke of prosecuting firms that have been responsible for putting large amounts of CO2 in the air, which they believe is harmful to humanity. You may think it isn’t, but if it is accepted that it is, legal consequences are normally considered. That’s different to prosecuting people who express sceptic views.

    You’re proposing the Red Queen’s argument — “First the verdict, then the trial.”

    Calling for the prosecution of people who are doing something you disagree with, but not doing anything illegal or even something proven to be harmful, is arrogant [snip]. No “if”s, “and”s, or “but”s — it’s plain, simple, arrogant [snip].


  176. Willis Eschenbach writes:

    “There are 10.6 million blogs hosted on WordPress. There are 350,000 new blog posts on WordPress daily. Every day, WordPress.com posts a ranking of the top 100 individual posts (new or old), judged according to their secret formula.

    “This post is now number 10 on the WordPress <a href="http://botd.wordpress.com/top-posts/"Blog of the Day site.””

    And this, it must be supposed, is one of the reasons why Barry Soetoro and his little ACORN elves really, really want to impose “Internet fairness” on the World Wide Web.

    Sheesh. How dare “denialists” like Willis speak lucidly and convincingly to an extremely broad audience of people all over these United States?

  177. Finally, it was a Greenpeace communication, done by one of their employees on their web site.

    Past tense. Willis, it’s a shame that you seem to continue to miss my point in all your responses. Attributing a phrase to an organisation, lifted from a blog post, after that post has been removed, seems to be not exactly in the finest tradition of ethical journalism.

    Next, you find fault with a few of my examples …

    Here’s the list:

    James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics,

    Au contraire. Hansen in fact praised scepticism in his piece and he certainly never called for all sceptics to be put on trial, here is the relevant text:

    Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

    So a true sceptic would be at no risk from Dr Hansen’s proposal. I am reminded of the tobacco executives who testified that they did not believe tobacco was carcinogenic….

    Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors .

    No, in reported remarks at a rock concert, his problem was with ‘companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity.’ You have conflated that into ‘climate sceptics’.

    Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible .

    No., he described failure to act on the scientific advice as such.

    David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed.

    According to a one-line quote in the National Post. Suzuki never meant it literaly. We know this because he told the ‘newspaper’ so. Still you mine the quote without the response.

    Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics.

    Nope, the target was ‘the denial industry’, those knowingly spreading misinformation in return for renumeration. The opposite of sceptics, you might say.

    Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.

    0% true. Romm said no such thing, a commenter at his blog made this distasteful prediction, which Romm pulled.

    A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers .

    So? TPM is an open site – anyone can blog there and the site swiftly pulled the piece once they became aware of it.. An example of Sturgeon’s Law, no more. If you’re worried by this nonsense -which I doubt- you need to develop a thicker skin.

    Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.

    No, she mused over whether forecasters who make statements out of line with the AMS’s position should continue to be eligible for that body’s Seal of Approval.

    You don’t discuss Suzuki, the best known Canadian AGW supporter, calling for skeptics to be jailed. That has not been atypical of AGW comments, not on blogs, but by people like Hansen and Suzuki and other prominent folks. You want to get outraged now? Where was your outrage when they were saying those things?

    Perhaps because I am not in the habit of reading the National Post, perhaps because I prefer the real thing to this faux stuff. This collection of quote-mined, secondhand, misconstrued press reports, deleted blog comments doesn’t do it for me I am afraid.

    Seems I am not alone: http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/cms/xcms/the-canadians-you-trust_2745_a.html

  178. Steven
    Hansen said “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual.” <What they are doing is principally causing a large amount of carbon to be transferred from the ground to the atmosphere. Hansen seems to be particularly incensed that they are in his view acting to spread doubt about AGW, but the key issue is that the firms are modifying the atmosphere. He isn’t saying that they should be prosecuted for their sceptic views, but for what they do.

    And Bill, no you’ve got that wrong – prosecution comes first, then trial and then verdict. Lots of people think lots of other people should be prosecuted (eg Dr Mann, this blog, or BP, anywhere).

    And you have the wrong Queen – Q of Hearts.

  179. JER0ME says:
    May 22, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    No such thing as centrifugal force. Now, if you were to talk about centripetal force .

    So says the physicists!
    But they never found how to recreate this force to show how it can move and compress mass. I have.

  180. Nick Stokes says:
    May 23, 2010 at 12:52 am
    Steven
    Hansen said “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual.” <What they are doing is principally causing a large amount of carbon to be transferred from the ground to the atmosphere. Hansen seems to be particularly incensed that they are in his view acting to spread doubt about AGW, but the key issue is that the firms are modifying the atmosphere. He isn’t saying that they should be prosecuted for their sceptic views, but for what they do.
    *
    *
    And of course you're totally blind to the fact the multinational oil companies have contrived to create this mess by first pretending to be against the idea of AGW, whilst on the other hand fully funding the venture behind the scenes?

    Do you remember the so-called 'oil embargo' of 1973? I do. I was stationed at the Naval Air Facility at Andrew's AFB. The MAC flights coming in from Europe would comment on the 'invasion fleet' of full tankers' parked off the 15 mile limit of the U.S. adjacent to the refinery points. They were waiting for Nixon's signature to rescind his wage-price controls.

    Here, there's a book you ought consume before you get to be too doddering: The Empire of "The City" by E.C. Knuth.

    Excerpt:
    On page 77 there there's a passage which applies in SPADES to what I speak:
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    "It is obvious that in the early stages of the usurpation of power in any land or even partial democracy, opposition is certain to rise, and that an attempt to suppress the antagonism by arbitrary means would quickly inflame and solidify the opponents into an overwhelming attack.

    "Machiavelli considered this aspect and indicated the correct method to neutralize this danger by stating: "Many consider, that a wise prince, when he has the opportunity, ought with craft to foster some animosity against himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may rise even higher.""

    "This indicates the technique of modern Machiavellians in having their own stalking horses grasp the leadership of their opponents, and then as their own and veiled and hidden action is gradually unfolded, have their pied pipers oppose them on spurious and superficial reasons in such a way as to obscure and conceal as far as possible the real reasons and objectives; thereby confusing and confounding the real opponents and leading them into a swamp of futility."

    How about that, eh?

  181. Rich Matarese says:
    May 22, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    And this, it must be supposed, is one of the reasons why Barry Soetoro and his little ACORN elves really, really want to impose “Internet fairness” on the World Wide Web.
    *
    *
    But the really interesting thing is: THERE IS all the ‘fairness’ for which one might ask, as all one need do is seek opinions which match one’s preferences!

    Last I checked, no website automatically ‘pops up’ on my computer, unless I set it to do such.

    In fact, the Internet is better than any radio: You may select to ignore content you don’t like and feed your brain on an exclusive diet of whatever.

    How easier could it be?

  182. Phil Clarke says:
    May 23, 2010 at 12:43 am
    Past tense. Willis, it’s a shame that you seem to continue to miss my point in all your responses. Attributing a phrase to an organisation, lifted from a blog post, after that post has been removed, seems to be not exactly in the finest tradition of ethical journalism.
    *
    *
    Willis spanked you, and did so with compassion.

    That you keep coming back for more is telling …

  183. “His scientific conduct has, of course, been investigated and no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been found.”

    There really does need to be some testimony under oath and consequences for fraud.

    Every time a con man is seen to get away with it, others are emboldened. As a result, the p.c. s of the world never go into remission.

    Willis is rational but reason is not coin in the present economy of con.
    There needs to be prosecutions pour encourager les autres.

    In this matter, the heroic S. McI. is doing best by leaving the building. On this score he was thwarting a natural correction. It’s never wise to try to deflect delivery of consequences as one catches the bullet himself. But there goes one hero, down.

    We are seeing the global consolidation phase of diverse fraud franchises – it’s very much like the Council of Nicea. The economies of scale to be achieved by consolidation are the last squeeze of institutions on the verge of bankruptcy.

    It really only took the crippling of one generation by a panoply of scientific means. It will take at least a generation to recover. Meanwhile, the wasted generation pollutes everything it handles.

    Stay on top, Willis. You don’t bend to whim because you understand principles explicitly. Make the frauds feel their wretchedness by being right. Show them their inner fear by knowing you are. Both of those things are proper to man and are what they crave and but never have until they earn the right. They can never steal it, either.
    Show us somebody can do it easily and show us how. Worthy is as worthy does.
    You rock.

  184. So proud to be in South Dakota where our legislature can admit doubts about humans being the only cause for as-yet-unproved global climate change.
    So embarrassed our lawmakers have a fascination with big words that almost mean what they think they mean.

  185. Rich Matarese says:
    May 22, 2010 at 8:12 pm


    Willis Eschenbach takes note of an episode in which a Greenpeace “activist,” upon boarding – uninvited and against the wishes of the crews – two fishing boats in Malta’s Grand Harbour, got pummeled and chucked overboard.

    I take greatest interest in the quotation in the article cited by Willis“

    “Greenpeace international oceans campaigner François Provost said: ‘We were just trying to carry out an inspection on the boats’.”

    Hm? Just what lawful authority has any member of Greenpeace to enter upon the private property of anyone in order “…to carry out an inspection“?

    Do these people now conceive themselves to be the Green Police?
    _____________________________________________________________________
    “Do these people now conceive themselves to be the Green Police?” – YES!

    We have one in my general area that I was warned about. On her vehicle she has written “Animal legal defense” or some such nonsense. She made their living driving a round looking for old horses. She had a friend who was a judge then issue a court order allowing her to confiscate the ENTIRE herd of horse, cattle and other livestock owned by that person. She would confiscate the herd and immediately sell it off at an out of state auction. At that time horses was selling for a minimum of $500 a piece at auction. Given my state has the largest horse herd next to the state of Texas, with many people having several horses, she did a brisk business.

    Unfortunately this is not the only person I have run across recently doing this type of “legal” thuggery. There are at least a half dozen others I know of.

    One made the mistake of going after the local rodeo cowboys. He was caught untying a $40,000 cutting horse at an event. Unfortunately for the Greenie the owner of the cutting horse was riding his roping horse. He got a very nasty lesson on why it is not a good idea to mess with someone else’s property. Since then the greenies in my state have left the rodeo people strictly alone. (Road burns really really hurt)

  186. 899 says:
    May 23, 2010 at 3:47 am

    “…..And of course you’re totally blind to the fact the multinational oil companies have contrived to create this mess by first pretending to be against the idea of AGW, whilst on the other hand fully funding the venture behind the scenes?

    “This indicates the technique of modern Machiavellians in having their own stalking horses grasp the leadership of their opponents, and then as their own and veiled and hidden action is gradually unfolded, have their pied pipers oppose them on spurious and superficial reasons in such a way as to obscure and conceal as far as possible the real reasons and objectives; thereby confusing and confounding the real opponents and leading them into a swamp of futility.”

    How about that, eh?”
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Nice to see someone else has ripped the blinders off.

    “Do you remember the so-called ‘oil embargo’ of 1973? I do…” So do I. I also remember the long line waiting to get gas. I talked to some old truckers recently and they mention that the oil refineries were so full at that time the guys loading their trucks were complaining about not having anywhere to put the fuel the refineries were making.

    Do not forget the Saudi Arabia/Rockefeller/oil connections:
    1932 May 31, Socal, formerly Standard Oil of California, discovered oil in Bahrain. This was the 1st middle eastern oil discovered by an American firm.
    (SFC, 10/20/04, p.C6) http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199901/prelude.to.discovery.htm

    1933 May, Saudi Arabia gave Standard Oil of California exclusive rights to explore for oil. Socal formed the California Arabian Standard Oil Co. to drill for oil in Saudi Arabia.
    (SFC, 10/20/04, p.C6)

    1984 Socal purchased Gulf Oil and its extensive operations in Nigeria and changed its name to Chevron.
    (SFC, 11/19/98, p.A8)(SFC, 10/20/04, p.C6) http://www.chevron.com/

    Here is an interesting history of the Oil Cartel by Richard Cowen; Ph.D. in Geology (1966); 1989-2003. Senior Lecturer in Geology, University of California, Davis : http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~gel115/115ch13oil.html

  187. I move we rent New England to Saudi Arabia and California to Mexico and move D.C. to Saint Louis.

    On second thought, I move we recind every federal law and treaty passed in the past 110 years.

    Ahhh… On third thought, it might be possible now, with the Web and all, to sell D.C. (what’s left of it) to Maryland for $1.00 and divide up the gold reserves and armed forces to the 50 States. It would give us more votes in the UN Security Council.

    OK! Maybe I’m putting the car in front of the mule… How about we limit all elected offices to two terms and don’t elect no more lawyers or Ha’verd Grads for the next 500 years and see how that works out?

    PS: Understand the weather is changing in Hawaii.

  188. Henry@Willis

    Thanks for the link!

    Yes, maybe we should start getting more aggressive by directing complaints to the BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commission) about the onesidedness of reporting by certain news media. The paper by R.Lindzen will do nicely and yours as well (congenital climate abnormalities).
    I think the reason why we must take on the media is because the debate here is now shifting to: “OK, so if we cannot use coal (to generate electricity) , then we must go nuclear”. I suspect it is the same in the USA?

    Personnally I am not at all too sure if we want the debate to shift in that direction, because I still think that nuclear energy is not so safe and we have not really found an answer yet as to what to do with the nuclear waste (aside from burying it underground). Or what is your feeling about that?
    I would be interested to know.

  189. Conference Report

    This seems apposite: The audience, containing some international faces, but mostly American libertarians and Republicans, loved the small-government message.
    They cheered when a member of the audience demanded that the “Climategate criminals” – the scientists behind the University of East Anglia (UEA) hacked emails – should be jailed for fraud.

    Outraged Willis? But what is this…?

    But then came a sudden and unexpected anti-climax. Mr McIntyre urged the audience to support the battle for open source data on climate change – but then he counselled them to stop clamouring for the blood of the e-mailers. McIntyre does not want them jailed, or even punished. He just wants them to say they are sorry.
    The audience disappointment was tangible – like a houndpack denied the kill. Mr McIntyre then advised sceptics to stop insisting that the Hockey Stick is a fraud. It is understandable for scientists to present their data in a graphic way to “sell” their message, he said. He understood why they had done it. But their motives were irrelevant.

    Or as Willis would probably say – McIntyre insists Hockey Stick not fraudulent….

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8694544.stm

  190. Thanks Willis. I only hope some of this feedback (both positive and negative) gets back to the author and to the executive leadership of AAAS. I just renewed my membership (coming on 30 years). But I do wonder why sometimes.

  191. 899.

    There is also evidence that the push to demonize C02 was started by the nuclear industry, Teller in particular. That is largely ignored by the people who want to spend time looking at the motives of industry.

  192. An anti-humanist world government thwarted by George Bush?

    In the end, it was all about the money, George Bush saved the world.

    We all see now that a non-existing of problem — global warming — was precisely created to be the fear so big that only world government could tackle the problem, right?

    There was a grand attempt to quickly stampede the herd by the UN. And, supporting the hoax were the obliging secular socialist organs of Western society, the mainstream media and the governmental-education machine and union.

    But reality and reason has in the end seen through the AGW hoax as a scientific fraud and also puts a spotlight on a continuing threat to the priciple that all humanity has a God-given right to liberty: the money and power grab by big government liberal fascism under color of global warming.

    “Banks and investors are pulling out of the carbon market after the failure … [at] Copenhagen … Carbon financiers have already begun leaving banks in London because of the lack of activity and the drop-off in investment demand…

    “Banks had been scaling back their plans to invest in carbon markets before Copenhagen. Fewer new clean energy projects need to be financed as, because of the recession, there are fewer global emissions to offset. The price of carbon credits has also fallen, while plans to introduce national trading schemes, particularly in the US and Australia, remain uncertain…

    “Carbon markets were central to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012 and obliged developed countries that exceed their targets to purchase credits from clean energy projects in the developing world. Policymakers will meet again in Mexico in November in an attempt to revive the climate change talks.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks

  193. Apparently Phil Clarke also endorses the behavior of DePrpagandaBlog. Lack of response to the libelous statements made about Dr. Tim Ball on that blog seem to be ok with him, judging by his lack of response. You accuse Willis of missing your point, yet you completely ignore a blatant example of the ignorance of your camp. WUWT? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~899 says:
    May 23, 2010 at 3:57 am
    Willis spanked you, and did so with compassion.

    That you keep coming back for more is telling …
    Once again 899 has hit the nail on the head, with a sledghammer !!!

  194. @Pascvaks —

    I move we rent New England to Saudi Arabia and California to Mexico and move D.C. to Saint Louis.

    In 1991, during the crises in Latvia and Lithuania, I wrote a letter to Bush I with a suggestion for resolving the crisis: Land for peace — we get the Baltic states and the Soviet Union gets D.C. The advantages would be enormous: The Baltic States, which had demonstrated their preference for freedom, would become major conduits for international finance and trade, due to their strategic location and solid underpinning (from the US) of both property law and military power. (Little did we suspect …) At the same time, the residents of DC would finally receive the socialist government system they have expressed their preference for over the last generation. And the US Capital would then be in a foreign country; how much more multicultural can you get?

    Unfortunately, this ingenious solution was not adopted. In fact, my letter was not even acknowledged …

    On second thought, I move we recind every federal law and treaty passed in the past 110 years.

    Except the treaties with the indians, of course — the casinos are terrific.

    ===
    On the subject of wildlife preservation, how could one possibly believe that animals as clever as this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37264223/ns/technology_and_science-science/
    would be bothered by a mere degree or so of Global Warming?

  195. Although there IS evidence of climate change throughout the last 30 years (As photographically suggested through certain glaciers receeding in Himilayan canyons in comparison to each following decade) it begs the question – how long have human beings been measuring climate conditions? A mathematician would suggest that more data over time needs to be accrued before a more accurate result can be delivered – but then it could be too late, right? Better to be concerned now than shitting bricks later!

  196. David Ball

    Apparently Phil Clarke also endorses the behavior of DePrpagandaBlog. Lack of response to the libelous statements made about Dr. Tim Ball on that blog seem to be ok with him, judging by his lack of response.

    David – generally speaking I prefer it if people do not ascribe opinions to me based on things I haven’t said. There must be a couple of dozen links in this post – you cannot infer a thing from the fact that I have not passed comment on any, each or all of them….

    But, since you ask, I read the piece: perhaps you could expand on what is libellous? You will be aware of Dr Ball’s previous failed libel suit in which he launched and then abandoned a $325K defamation suit after the defendant responded, among other things ” (d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” ….

    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Calgary%20Herald%20Statement%20of%20Defence.pdf

    Regarding my ‘spanking’ – it might have hurt a bit more if the one handing it out had not had to resort to complete fabrications ;-)

  197. Good article, Willis, as usual.

    Just one small point: as “people” is a collective noun, isn’t the possessive form “people’s” and not “peoples'”? The latter might, however, be the possessive form of “peoples” as in “the peoples of the earth”.

  198. Phil Clarke says:
    May 23, 2010 at 11:14 am
    You are playing the “in the pay of Big Oil” card? You must be kidding, right? Even you must be smart enough to see that, if there were big oil money, the lawsuit would have gone ahead. You must also know that the lawyer for the defendant was paid for by “Big Green”. The very same lawyer that is being used by Andrew Weaver. See if you can put it all together. You are being led down the garden path , I’m afraid. It is obvious to me who is doing the “fabricating”.

  199. Phil Clarke says:
    May 23, 2010 at 12:43 am

    Finally, it was a Greenpeace communication, done by one of their employees on their web site.

    Past tense. Willis, it’s a shame that you seem to continue to miss my point in all your responses. Attributing a phrase to an organisation, lifted from a blog post, after that post has been removed, seems to be not exactly in the finest tradition of ethical journalism.

    Yeah, right. They set off a firestorm, and when it got too hot, they ran for the exits.

    You seem to think that because they ran for the exits, they should be forgiven for the firestorm. Me, not so much.

    Similarly, you find excuses for James Hansen calling for trials based on thought crimes (he claims, without a shred of evidence, that they knew that they were doing wrong). You say that “true skeptics would be at no risk” from Hansen’s proposal. Gosh, I feel so much better now. And how will you tell a “true skeptic” from a “mostly true but occasionally false” skeptic, or a “thinks he is true but really is false” skeptic? Call in the though police, folks, Phil needs them stat to determine if Willis is a “true skeptic” …

    Phil, my point was simple. Some scientists are now getting nasty emails in private. On the other side, skeptics are very publicly getting fired, losing their jobs, being threatened with trials and being called traitors and worse.

    So I find the complaints of those scientists, who appear to be too stupid to simply delete junk emails of any type, to be singularly unconvincing. I’ve gotten nasty emails, and I’ve been abused in public. I can tell you which one is trivial. If you can’t tell the difference between private emails and public calls for “Nuremberg style trials” … well, then being an AGW supporter is probably the ideal job for you.

  200. David BallYou are playing the “in the pay of Big Oil” card?

    Of course I am not; nor do I wish to get involved in a protracted to-and-fro about the largely negligible Tim Ball. I was just quoting the Statement of Defence which was about his reputation and perceptions thereof [that's why it says 'is viewed as']. I have no strong views either way on Tim Ball’s activities. It is a matter of record that he claimed credentials he didn’t have, it is a matter of record that he sued Calgary Herald after that organ published a letter to the editor in April 2006 by Dan Johnson, it is a matter of record that the paper’s statement of Defence alleged:

    50. The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. The particulars of the Plaintiff’s reputation are as follows:

    (a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;

    (b) The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

    (c) The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

    (d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.

    It is a metter of record that Dr Ball declined to defend hiself against these charges. I have no idea why he made that choice, nor any great curiousity, some have speculated that it was because of this clause:

    The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff suffered any loss to his reputation or income earning capacity, and put the Plaintiff to strict proof thereof.

    which would have led to Dr Ball opening up his accounts, and possibly those of the NRSP and Friends of Science.

    You never answered my question. You did however, make an implication of fabrication. If you are accusing me of fabrication I would be grateful if you would be specific.

  201. If you can’t tell the difference between private emails and public calls for “Nuremberg style trials” … well, then being an AGW supporter is probably the ideal job for you.

    Shall we examine that in more detail? Here’s the reference: http://www.grist.org/article/the-denial-industry/

    As I already pointed out, the piece is itself a reference to a section in George Monbiot’s indispensible book Heat entitled ‘The Denial Industry’, which you can read here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

    If you did so, you would discover it is not about honest scepticism, it is about organisations that knowingly spread disinformation on behalf of industrial interests, mainly Exxon, but several others. If you doubt that this happened I refer you to Bob Ward’s open leter to Exxon detailing multi million dollar payments to organisations spreading such misinformation.

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

    Calls for Nuremberg trials I do not condone, but unless you have been spreading misinformation for money, which of course you have not, then the call for such trials was not aimed at climate sceptics, contrary to your claim. A near perfect example of the Straw Man fallacy. Nearly all your other examples suffer from similar infelicities, others, such as the attribution of words to Joe Room that he never wrote, are just bogus.

    As to scientists ‘complaining’ about the hate mail and death threats, I think the response is actually by and large sensible, Here is Gavin Schmidt:

    For the most part, the rants have remained just that – rants. Threats of physical harm remain rare and are usually discounted, scientists say. “These people don’t really know you,” Schmidt added. “They’re not really talking about you. You’re just a symbol that has an e-mail address.

    But I think playing down this cyber-bullying is unwise: the police take the hate mails seriously and have issued advice to scientists to retain them.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/02/the-rise-of-anti-science-cyber-bullying/

  202. Phil Clarke says:
    May 22, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Monckton called for Mann to be prosecuted for fraud, not for voicing is opinions.

    He stated Mann et al are guilty of genocide. If you have hard evidence of fraud you should present it to Penn State U. [or just post it here]. His scientific conduct during his employment at Penn State has, of course, been investigated and no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been found.

    There, fixed it for you.

  203. Phil Clarke, May 23, 2010 at 1:29 pm, preposterously states that he does not want to get into “a protracted to and fro” — then he cherry-picks and posts only the defense’s talking points, while admitting he doesn’t really know what happened.

    If Mr Clarke is unaware of Dr Ball’s response, maybe he can be forgiven for his attempted character assassination. Maybe.

  204. Smokey – I know this: Tim Ball abandoned his case in the face of a determined defence.

    I see the ‘response’ repeats the claim that Ball was Canada’s ‘first PhD in Climatology.’ This was one of the points at issue and is demonstrably wrong:.

    Kenneth Hare, a well-respected Professor at McGill, who received his PhD in 1950, also in the UK. Climatologist Andre Robert (PhD from McGill, 1965) conducted research that laid the groundwork in atmospheric models and climate. Timothy Oke, a leader in the study of urban climate, received his PhD from McMaster in 1967.’

    So I find this article factually inaccurate and so unreliable, I am afraid.

  205. I think we should all remember why this conflict has arisen – it is over the dispute as to whether human beings have caused catastrophic global warming to the planet. The name calling on the fringes of this debate is unpleasant but not surprising when the vast financial stakes in the argument are taken into account.

    I am pleased to describe myself as a left of centre person with a keen interest in looking after our only planet but, in spite of a very careful search I am unable to find evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming sufficient to justify even the billions of dollars spent on looking for it – let alone the amount proposed to be spent on ameliorating it.

    I think that the population at large is entitled to think in terms of fraud when it sees such enormous sums being spent on something which seems to them to be a chimera, at best.


  206. 899 reminds us of a relatively forgotten – or suppressed? – event in American history:

    Do you remember the so-called ‘oil embargo’ of 1973? I do. I was stationed at the Naval Air Facility at Andrew’s AFB. The MAC [the U.S. Air Force's Military Airlift Command] flights coming in from Europe would comment on the ‘invasion fleet’ of full tankers parked off the 15 mile limit of the U.S. adjacent to the refinery points. They were waiting for Nixon’s signature to rescind his wage-price controls.

    The growing number of Americans who consider themselves part of (or in sympathy with) the “Tea Party” movement must keep in mind that the Republican faction of our great Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party is not to be trusted as a force for the constraint of civil government under the rule of law.

    The rein of Richard Milhous Nixon proved this for once and all, and it is no coincidence that today’s conscientiously libertarian political movement divorced itself forcefully from America’s “court party” during the reign of the president who inflicted OSHA, the EPA, and the first peacetime wage and price controls upon this nation.

    Oh, and let’s not forget “the Nixon shock” that completely divorced the U.S. dollar from even the semblance of specie valuation, thus setting the stage for the Gadarene currency inflation we’ve seen under Dubbya and his brother-in-felony, Barry Soetoro.

    Those of us committed to the kind of scientific integrity advocated by Richard Feynman in his “Cargo Cult Science” commencement address at CalTech in 1974 tend robustly to what we might as well call a nonpartisan opposition to government thuggery imposed upon the voluntary exchanges by which the marketplace facilitates function in a division-of-labor economy.

    It doesn’t matter whether the “right” or the “left” undertakes such dirigisme as they are endlessly prone to doing. Both are destructive, both are damnable, and both are to be opposed for the sake not only of “the greater good” but also for that integrity of intellectual function which every scientist must maintain for the sake of his effectiveness as an investigator into and expatiator upon the phenomenal universe.

  207. Phil Clarke clearly believes we’re stupid here. In his previous post he said, “I have no strong views either way on Tim Ball’s activities. It is a matter of record that he claimed credentials he didn’t have…”

    But it is obvious that Mr Clarke does, in fact, have very strong views regarding Dr Ball, since he advocates the defense lawyers case by repeating their accusations.

    Dr Tim Ball provided his credentials in 2007 to the newspapers linked above, yet Clarke continues to repeat the mendacious fabrication that Dr Ball “never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist,” despite the fact that Ball wrote his PhD thesis on climatology, taught climatology, and wrote numerous newspaper articles on climatology and related issues.

    There are not many people in the climatology field, and it would be hard to find many who have not heard of Dr Timothy Ball.

    If I were Phil Clarke, residing in the UK with it’s draconian libel laws, I would be hesitant to repeat statements damaging to Dr Ball’s reputation. But maybe that’s just me.

  208. Now Phil will probably try to tell us that the Hudson’s Bay records are of no importance to the debate. Meanwhile, one of the loudest screams from CAGW proponents is that the artic melting (what I would call a valley in the up and down cycles of the pole), is unprecedented. Again, it is why these people have gone to such lengths to attack the man (Dr. Ball) and not the issue. Phil, the “question” you wanted me to answer is a distraction from the issue. I will not be baited or sidestepped. Realize that what was said in the DeSmog article is far worse than anything said about Weaver, Mann, et al. THIS IS THE ISSUE. Also understand that my father is one of those scientist (He has a Doctor of Science degree in climatology, just so you are aware) that was a victim of the CRU attempt to control the peer-review process. Again, why would those people feel it necessary to control that process if their conclusions were so strong? It is impossible to publish in the scientific forums when you are shut out. Your whole argument is built on a crumbling foundation. Or do you deny that Climategate and the Wegman report happened?

  209. I apparently overestimated Phil Clarke’s ability to “put it together”. Notice his lack of response to the funding of said legal teams. Just so everyone knows, Dan Johnston said my father taught at a “mickey mouse University”. See if you can find out where Mr. Johnson teaches and what Mr. Johnson teaches. Also find out where Mr. Johnson was educated and under whom he was educated. It all stinks to high heaven !!!

  210. Phil Clarke says:
    May 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    Smokey – I know this: Tim Ball abandoned his case in the face of a determined defence.

    I will say it again, Phil. Please pay attention this time. The case was dropped due to lack of funds. For no other reason. Stop believing everything you read, especially from an agenda driven political site that is in its death throes.

  211. Smokey – Phil Clarke clearly believes we’re stupid here

    Au contraire. But consider this – one instigates an action for defamation to preserve one’s reputation and earnings as a subject expert – after that expertise is questioned in print. It becomes clear that the publication is going to defend the case, and effectively claims that you are no authority in the field, having retired a decade earlier with no publications to your name.

    You fold.

    That seems an accurate precis. I am not going to speculate why Dr Ball declined to pursue his defamation action, but the decision appears odd, especially if his actual expert status is as rock solid as you cliam, and there is a 6-figure sum at stake. So it goes.

    But then to go to the press and for that publication to repeat a false claim that was part of the action, and that can be easily and unequivocally shown to be false, blowing their credibility in one sentence. In my opinion that does take a special kind of stupid.

  212. Stuart Huggett says:
    May 23, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    Yours is the voice of reason. I’m just standing up for my father after seeing him being smeared like this for 30 years (when is that CAGW going to start anyway?). It is gratifying that the truth is finally coming out. Thank you for your post.

  213. My apologies to Willis Eschenbach and Anthony (mods included). My intention is never to highjack a thread. Willis’ post are vital.

  214. David Ball,

    I had no idea that you are Tim Ball’s son. So thanks for clearing up the reason why he chose not to pursue the action – you will notice I did not speculate about this. If I have made any errors of fact, as you insinuated above, then please feel free to correct me.

    You say He has a Doctor of Science degree in climatology, just so you are aware

    I was NOT aware of that, I was aware that he was awarded a Geography Doctor of Philosophy in 1983

    http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscope=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27

    but I did not know he also holds the more prestigious Doctor of Science, – according to wikipedia: the Sc.D. is a ‘higher doctorate’ awarded in recognition of a substantial and sustained contribution to scientific knowledge.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_science

    Impressive. Could you share with us when was he awarded this honour and by which institution?

  215. I was incorrect. It is a Doctor of Philosphy as you stated, but it is in the faculty of science (Queen Mary colledge of London) , not geography as DeSmog has claimed. I think you will find that DeSmog has misled you about a great many things regarding this subject. I have sent it to Anthony as I do not know how to post a pdf. file.

  216. Phil Clarke,
    I have no idea why Dr. Ball dropped the defamation action, but I can guess. This is Canadian law we are talking about. I had a public accusation and fines levied against me by a quasi-judicial government body 20+ years ago. I appealed to the provincial court (where I won) which they appealed to the provincial court of appeal (where I won) which they appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (who refused to hear the case)(meaning I won). I consulted with half a dozen lawyers who all advised me in regard to a defamation suit that:

    1. My case was pretty much air tight.
    2. Legal fees would be $200K to $400K
    3. It would take 5 years or more
    4. I would likely be awarded $100K in damages plus legal fees which Canadian courts would estimate in the range of $50K.

    These types of cases rarely go forward in Canada and now you know why.

  217. You have yet to answer my question regarding the importance of the Hudson’s Bay records and whether DeSmog has stepped over ethical boundaries regarding the attacks on my father. You do not get off that easy.

  218. David Ball,

    Thanks for clearing that up! I think it is admirable that you stand up for your father, however I suggest that getting such details as the degree he holds correct is important – especially when of the points at issue is that Dr Ball inflated his credentials! Doubtless it was a simple mistake, however in the UK the distinction between D.Sc and PhD. is a large one and some might not be so charitable.

    I see that in the first CFP article Smokey provided, Dr Ball states: “That’s absolute rubbish. I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College,” Dr. Ball told Canada Free Press (CFP) yesterday in a telephone interview. and in the second he awards himself this apparently nonexistant D.Sc.

    …. whether DeSmog has stepped over ethical boundaries regarding the attacks on my father. You do not get off that easy.

    And I have asked you be specific about what boundaries have been transgressed – apparently that is ‘sidestepping’. Make a specific allegation and I wlll consider discussing it. Excuse me – but I am not going to try and second-guess what you think the problem is.

  219. Dude Willis,
    That picture is SO wrong… I assume that the polar bears floated on ice all the way to S Pole for a picnic grill. That will imply 2 things: 1. the water temps of the ocean cooled so dramatically in the last year (though it was not reported by BBC, and of course is due to AGW) that the ice did not melt during the journey, and 2. the “conveyor belt” is not slowing down as was falsely reported by biased media, but is accelerated now, to new record speeds so the journey of the polar bears was quick and without incidents.

    Before you get grilled by the “hot mouths” at realclimate, I would change that penguin with a seal.

  220. Science: I don’t know. I’ll show everybody how I tried to find out.

    Persuasion: Let me prove it to you.

    Climate Science: You can’t doubt that we’ve already proven it to you.

  221. Phil Clarke says:
    May 23, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Calls for Nuremberg trials I do not condone, but unless you have been spreading misinformation for money, which of course you have not, then the call for such trials was not aimed at climate sceptics, contrary to your claim.

    Well, I got an honorarium for speaking at the Heartland Conference … and quite obviously you think that I am spreading misinformation … so I’m spreading misinformation for money, and as a result, contrary to your opinion, the threat of a trial was aimed directly at me.

    Heck, in my last job I was an oil company executive. To be fair, it was the oil importing company to the Solomon Islands, hardly “big oil” … or even “small oil” … as someone said, it was more like “baby oil” … but as an oil company executive spreading misinformation for money, your reassurances that these trials are not aimed at me ring strangely hollow. And I’ve always found the “don’t worry, they’re only arresting Jews” line that you are pushing to explain it one of the scariest lines in the whole AGW playbook.

    Which is is a problem with witch trials, of course, it is very hard to tell which witch is which, and by some bizarre quirk of fate, it ends up (despite your handwaving) being aimed right at me.

    And for a man who says he does not condone these trials, you sure are spending a lot of time defending them.

    Phil, it’s more than theoretical. People have already lost their jobs for speaking out on this question. And all the ones that I’ve heard of have been skeptics. Surprise, huh?

    No AGW supporters have lost their jobs, not even when they call for Nuremberg style trials, not even when they engage in illegal activities, not even when they destroy evidence, not even when they write for their pet blog RC during the time they are supposed to be doing the work for their taxpayer supplied salary, doesn’t matter. They don’t lose their jobs.

    I’m sure you’ll find some way to explain to us how that’s all quite reasonable, but out here in the real world, people don’t like those kinds of heavy-handed tactics. So you can defend them until you are blue in the face, but it doesn’t matter. As we used to say on the cattle ranch where I grew up, “You can piss on my boots … but you can’t convince me it’s raining” …

    Spare us the whining about how the calls for trials have been misunderstood. Don’t waste your time laboriously re-parsing and spinning what the AGW supporters have said. Unlike you, we understand what it means to be compared to Nazis, threatened with trials, and being told “We know where you work. We know where you live”.

    And no matter how fast you spin, that won’t change. So I’d advise you to pick another issue to obsess about, that one is toast.

  222. Phil Clarke says:
    May 23, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    I admitted I was incorrect. Do not belabour the point. What IS crucial is that it is in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE and NOT geography. It is clear that your attempt at redirecting the issue to my fathers credentials is a straw man to the argument. Typical tactics for someone who cannot back up their point. Phil Clarke is not your real name, and you seem to be deeply involved in the subject, which should raise some alarm bells for people reading here, as Smokey pointed out. I think you are up to your eyeballs in this deception. Read the link I posted and KNOW that his credentials are still far more than the majority involved in the debate, INCLUDING me and you. Attack his science if you can, and not the man. Refute this, if you can, and then tell me why it is unimportant to the debate, if you can. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23535

  223. I tossed off a letter to Science magazine several days ago.

    The magazine hastened to tell me they had replaced their fabricated polar bear picture with a real one.

    I replied that authenticity of the photo wasn’t the point. Either photo was gratuitous irrelevance intended to infer something to persons ignorant of the life of polar bears bit eager to believe the authors.

  224. Smokey: yet Clarke continues to repeat the mendacious fabrication that Dr Ball “never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist,” despite the fact that Ball wrote his PhD thesis on climatology (etc)

    Mendacity huh? Smokey once again you demonstrate your complete mastery of the creative edit. Let’s see what you did there – ah, you have truncated the quote mid-sentence to make it appear that expertise in climatology was the issue, let us repair the damage

    The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

    Since nobody was disputing the existence of Dr Ball’s Doctorate, producing it with a flourish is utterly irrelevant. No, the main point at issue was misrepresentation – The good doctor added several years onto his Professorial career and upgraded his degree a notch, amongst other things. Details perhaps – but some people think details matter.

    David Ball Refute this, if you can, and then tell me why it is unimportant to the debate, if you can.

    Well in that piece Dr Ball notes the IPCC’s assertion that emitted CO2 affects the atmosphere for 100-200 years, and counters In reality the residency time is between 5 and 6 years. The idea also depends on the incorrect claim that CO2 increased from pre-industrial levels due solely to humans, but that’s another story of deceptive science.

    But this – the average time an individual molecule remains in the atmosphere is the wrong measure from a global warming perspective. Carbon is constantly flowing from sinks to source and back again and so our individual molecule is simply exchanging places with another one. The correct metric is ‘how long will a given pulse of emitted CO2 increase atmospheric concentrations before being resequestered into a long term sink? It is this number that the IPCC were reporitng. In fact an analytic approach of the Bern cycle shows that around 20% of the Co2 will still be increasing concentrations 1,000 years after being emitted. (Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 2287-2312, 2007 Fig 9).

    Here is what the IPCC actually wrote in the TAR glossary: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few years. Thus, the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually determined by the rate of removal of carbon from the surface layer of the oceans into its deeper layers. Although an approximate value of 100 years may be given for the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual adjustment is faster initially and slower later on.

    One would expect a professional climatologist to be extremely familiar with this concept, rather than reproducing discredited contrarian canards: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

    DavidmHoffer: These types of cases rarely go forward in Canada and now you know why.

    Except the case was started and then dropped ….. surely an intelligent and educated man would have an idea of the costs before instructing his lawyers ….?

    Philip John Clarke is very much my real name, sometimes I post as pjclarke elsewhere. No idea why you thought otherwise.

  225. Phil Clarke,

    I only cited the part of the quote that I was commenting on, which is my usual practice. But since you made the rest of the quote an issue [ "...and authority on global warming."], you seem to be supporting the notion that Dr Ball is not an authority on global warming. So as usual, we are on opposite sides of the issue, because Dr Ball certainly is an authority. Clearly the lawyer’s statement you quoted is not factual.

    Your move.

  226. I am really, really sick and tired of the moral and intellectual pretensions of the warm-mongers, specifically including Mr. Clarke. I am tired of their instant resort to personal smears. I am tired of their armwaving strawman “debunking.” I am tired of their “consensus” twaddle, when in fact the most casual inquiry reveals a tiny coterie who are controlling the “conversation.” I am sick to death of their rote yapping about “peer review,” when they have perhaps irremediably corrupted the process, and when the point of science was never “peer review” per se but complete openness as to methods and data — which they have steadfastly, almost neurotically, refused to allow. I am nauseated when I hear their “oil funding” chorus, when Greenpeace and the WWF have each received more than two orders of magnitude more funding from corporations than all the free-market think tanks combined — let alone the skeptical science community.

    But what makes me really sick is the realization that the $100 billion or so wasted on “climate science” — not quite yet an oxymoron, thanks only to Lindzen, Christy, our own Willis, and a small brave band of real scientists — could have bought an insecticide-impregnated mosquito net for every bed in Africa and South Asia, plus enough DDT to control mosquitoes in swamps near populated areas, with enough left over to keep NASA’s Mars program viable.

    But instead of eliminating malaria and keeping mankind’s restless ambition alive, thanks to the warm-mongers we spent the money gazing at our global navel hoping to find the Global Warming Fairy, while at the same time utterly devastating millions of acres of wildlife habitat and peaceful countryside with useless industrial wind turbine phalanxes — which generate no actual power but lots of tax breaks and subsidies — in the quest for some delusional “renewable energy,” clearcutting rainforests for palm oil and fraudulent “carbon sinks,” and doubling world food prices by supporting ethanol production.

    So having worked as hard as ever they can to destroy what natural environment remains in the developed world, and to murder as many as possible through starvation and disease in the undeveloped world, these wonderful people preen themselves and vaunt their moral superiority as “humanitarians” and “environmentalists.”

    Sorry, I had to go get my barf bag.

    I realize that WUWT, CA, and the rest of the climate realist blogosphere attempt to maintain a civilized level of objective scientific discourse, free from the diatribes that pervade warmist rhetoric. But sometimes it is necessary to vent, and my infrared iris opens up…

  227. DavidmHoffer: These types of cases rarely go forward in Canada and now you know why.
    Phil Clarke
    Except the case was started and then dropped ….. surely an intelligent and educated man would have an idea of the costs before instructing his lawyers ….?>>

    LOL. You could only say something like that out of naivety. You’ve been publicly maligned, you’re ANGRY. You’re not necessarily making rationale decisions. Lawyers are typically vague on costs because they don’t really know. The other side could fold with the first court appearance or they could drag it out to the bitter end. If you believe strongly in your own case, you can’t believe that the other side will fight you in court. Then they do and suddenly you’re in for $5K and nothing has happened yet. Then itz $10K. Now what? The lawyer wants another $10K retainer and you don’t have it. The other side is throwing delaying tactics at every little thing knowing you can’t fund your case for 5 years. So when your anger finaly wears off and your bank account is empty, you have to make a rational decision and drop the case.

  228. omegaman66 says:
    May 24, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    How dare you try to trick us into thinking that polar bears that live in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere would ever meet up with a penguin, who’s species only lives in the southern hemisphere. lol

    Not true, not true! There are a few dozen living at the Boston Aquarium! Well, not by choice, of course. It’s neat watching them fly through the water around the
    main tank. They have seals (well, Harbor Seals, not the cute white ones) but suspiciously, no Polar Bears.

  229. you seem to be supporting the notion that Dr Ball is not an authority on global warming. So as usual, we are on opposite sides of the issue, because Dr Ball certainly is an authority

    Smokey – by definition an authority is a figure to whom one turns for accurate advice and information. Dr Ball has informed us that the satellite record shows cooling, that global temperatures peaked in the 1940s and that pre-industrial CO2 levels were higher than today. Each of these is wrong. QED and TTFN.

  230. Phil Clarke,

    You are really beginning to sound deluded. Each of your contentions is wrong. Every one of them:

    Here is the satellite record that shows cooling.

    Here is the GHCN raw temp record showing the peak in the 1940s.

    And as everyone except you seems to know, pre-industrial CO2 was many times higher than it is now.

    Finally, Dr Ball is a widely respected authority on the climate.

    And you are neither.

  231. Smokey

    By pre-industrial, Ball meant 19th Century. Here is Richard Lindzen:

    At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

    Which authority is correct Lindzen or Ball? It cannot be both.

    Your ‘satellite’s show cooling’ graph starts in 2002, Ball made the claim in 2004. Here is Roy Spencer: ‘trends since 11/78 is +0.132 deg. C per decade’.

    Which authority is correct, Spencer or Ball? It cannot be both.

    As for warm forties – ROFL! How long did it take you find a graph that has a peak in the 1940s and just what is it graphing? Looks like some kind of residual. It sure ain’t global temps. Here is HadCrut. and here is Roy Spencer expressing his faith in Phil Jones…

    Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we’re not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway.”

    You get the idea. QED again. Bye!.

  232. Phil Clarke,

    Your first sentence in your Frontier Center link begins:

    “Tim Ball has an extensive science background in climatology…”, thus destroying your surreal claim that Dr Ball is not a recognized expert.

    And thank you for that link. I agree with everything Dr Ball says, and as he is an internationally esteemed climatologist, everyone should read Dr Ball’s own words, rather than the mendacious spin put on them by others pushing climate alarmism. If there is any doubt about what Dr Ball said, or about the context, write Dr Ball directly, and simply ask.

    Also, you linked to your home-made woodfortrees chart. I have refined it. As my woodfortrees link shows, satellite temperature readings dropped drastically in 2004 — by .5°C. As you stated, Dr Ball made his comment about declining temperatures in 2004, which was correct at that time.

    All five readers still following this thread should also read Dr Ball’s exposé of the devious shenanigans employed by the always unsavory alarmist crowd, which is linked within the Frontier Center you cited.

    Finally, posting an article by the thoroughly odious Roger Harrabin is tantamount to posting an article by Al Gore: lots of words, but no closer to science than Scientology is. Harrabin actually tries to pretend Mann’s Hokey Stick hasn’t been completely debunked! How’s that for a mental delusion? If it were not for cognitive dissonance, Harrabin would have nothing to say.

    Attacking Tim Ball is all about trying to silence a voice of reason through the vile tactic of character assassination. As you can see, it is not working here. Try it at an alarmist echo chamber like RC or Romm’s anti-science blog. Their mindless drones will eat it up.

Comments are closed.