By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
This week was marked by a blowout that may have greater ramifications than the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of literature entitled “Expert credibility in climate” by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider that claims:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. (Boldface added)
After ClimateGate, warming advocates declared they must communicate better with the public.
Apparently, some believe they can communicate better with the public not by demonizing carbon but by demonizing those who challenge their views, by attempting to demonstrate the challengers are somehow unqualified. The keyword “climate deniers” is a tip-off – those who think that based on physical evidence, climate change is largely natural, not human caused. Already, blacklists have been drawn up with names of those who challenge the orthodoxy. Sometime in the future, it may be useful to compare the allocation of funding with names on the lists to assess the objectivity of those who control climate change funding.
By publishing this survey and its conclusions, the National Academy of Sciences is approaching a low perhaps not seen since eugenics was in vogue.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy so I am right.
So there.
There are two etiological mechanisms which have created this perfect storm of pathology. The politicians noted a bit of science that would increase their power and the scientists noted a bit of politics which would further their search for the truth. The unfortunate synergy of these two mechanisms has produced the dying man on the litter, an AGW paradigm with an unstable cardiac rhythm and poor vital signs.
H/t Robert.
======
Maybe the future money is in thought control research: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_last_experiment/
With lots of chatter about “denialism” being a psychological illness, no doubt there will be a little green pill to cure or control it.
Dean Easterling has informed me that the final Mann report from PSU will be issued no later than 01 July.
Meant to append this quote from the article:
“One needs social science at the absolute center of the strategic decisions being made in this area. It has to be on an equal footing with the natural sciences, with engineering, with economic analyses,” Fischhoff argues. “If it’s at the end, then it’s too late to shape the policies in ways that will have any meaningful impact.” To fix this, Fischhoff envisions an NIH-like social-science corps, a “substantial institution that would provide social-sciences resources for people willing to take these issues seriously.” If legitimate and properly funded, it could finally attract more top scientists, the kind of people who are “more concerned with making this work than publishing another limited disciplinary paper,” as he puts it.
Oooh dear its not looking good for us sceptics is it? Lets hope and pray that nature and reality rain on their parade before they can enact their fiendish plans.
The sad truth is that governments want this and the scientific establishement seem bent on supplying them with the desired cover whether that means moving the goalposts,fixing the data and models and going all the way down the road to hell and blacklisting enemies of the consensus and in so doing enabling a denial of funding to the sceptics.
It looks like nature and reality can rain on their parade and all it will do is force them to put the umbrella up and carry on regardless.
I raised the question, “who actually supports AGWhatever?” in the original Blacklist post and, after doing a bit of searching, posted a link to an article stating that only 7% of scientists publishing papers on climate science in 1997 actually openly supported the idea. 6% opposed and the rest were undecided (didn’t support or oppose).
If 97% now support and given the blacklist of only 500 of the 30,000 science signatures opposing, then the definition of climate researcher must now be very narrow.
We live in a crazy world : \
Without any doubt we are in a typical propaganda war.
That alone is a comforting conclusion.
History tells us that most propaganda based doctrines are bound to fail.
The cracks in the propaganda facade are slowly getting wider and more frequent. I just hope the whole thing falls apart before our economy is destroyed beyond repair.
“This week was marked by a blowout that may have greater ramifications than the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. ”
As alarmism goes, that’s just off the scale.
[snip – religion issues are not discussed here]
“97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC …”
Hmmmm. Interesting use of the word “tenets” there. As in: “belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion” (OED)?
What was it Michael Crichton was saying five years ago? http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-studentsandleaders-question1.html
The Sacred Models predict trend without end, Amen.
The man on the street is wondering what the Predictors have been smoking.
Didn’t we just get over a very long winter?
None of this is science. It’s Tricky Dick spin, politics and propaganda. What these “sceientists” don’t understand is that they have just abdicated the thrown for all science.
Now scientists have no more credibility than politicians.
[SNIP]
[Referring to others as ‘deniers’ and ‘denialists’ is not acceptable here. ~dbs, mod.]
Apparently, some believe they can communicate better with the public not by demonizing carbon but by demonizing those who challenge their views, by attempting to demonstrate the challengers are somehow unqualified.
When all else fails, Shoot the messenger. Ad Hominem argumentation.
Instead of coming clean after the scandal of Climategate, the preferred choice is to run attack ads.
Swiftboat politics are currently a big turn-off.
So why the choice that makes the AGW Proponents appear as the problem rather than the solution?
My guess is that isolation has taken it’s toll on them.
Let’s suppose the skeptics turn out to be right – that current changes in climate are not primarily caused by human activities. Further let’s suppose that we are now entering a cooler period with shorter growing seasons and higher energy bills. Would it not make sense for the vindicated skeptics to demonize the pro-warming cultists. Do we really want people running and working at our scientific institutions who have clearly demonstrated that they put AGW religion and politics ahead of long accepted standards of open, verifiable peer-reviewed science. Have not most of the AGW proponents by their words, deeds and actions shown themselves to be unfit for the jobs they currently hold?
~SNIP~
[No d-words here. ~dbs, mod.]
How long before they call for the burning of non-conformist books?
Not to worry. In FY 2011 the funding will be curtailed sharply.
I completely disagree.
There hasn’t been coercion of science like this since the pope sent Galileo his room.
LOL they’ve communicated too well so far, that’s their real problem.
~SNIP~
[Repeated name-calling will get you nowhere. ~dbs, mod.]
Starting with the assumption that research funding and publication in peer reviewed journals are allocated on the basis of the quality of the science then that study proves that AGW alarmists have science on their side.
Starting with the assumption that funding from government sources and publication in journals is affected by bias toward the content of the research proposal then that study proves that AGW alarmists have the politics on their side.
This “study” is a fitting, even Zen worthy end to the Global Warming push. The IPCC started with a confusion of cause and effect between clouds and climate feedback and now crashes and burns on the confusion between cause and effect of the opinion of individual scientists.
In this age od deception and outright lies, one has to look closely at the quote:” 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Liars and deceivers qualify a deception to death, and this is no exception!
The very qualification ” 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field ” leaves out all those whose publications have been denied or rejected because their findings didn’t come to the pre-determined conclusions as the bed wetters. And considering the revelations in climategate, this is not just paranoia but the real thing. If a legitimate climate scientist has been frozen out from publishing by the falsifiers, it’s quite obvious the legitimate scientist questioning AGW will be vastly outnumbered by those marching in lockstep to the beat of the UN.