Helmut Schmidt calls for IPCC inquiry

Helmut Schmidt

Helmut Schmidt Image via Wikipedia

by Bob Carter (originally published on Quadrant Online)

Former German Chancellor demands IPCC inquiry

Helmut Schmidt, the respected former Chancellor of Germany, has told an audience at the Max-Plank-Gesellschaft that a full inquiry needs to be held into the credibility of advice on global warming that stems from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Set up in 1988 in order to deliver policy advice to governments regarding global warming, ever since 2005 the IPCC has been become mired in controversy over the integrity and accuracy of its procedures. Most recently, in early 2010, a number of scandals erupted over the selective use of published literature by the IPCC, and also its practice of relying upon documents from environmental lobby groups rather than refereed scientific papers.

In his speech, Helmut Schmidt said:

In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are also concerned, at the same time, by the phenomenon of global warming and its alleged consequences. We know that there have always been naturally occurring ice ages and warm periods; what we don’t know is how significant the human-induced contribution to present and future global warming is and will be.

The climate policy adopted by many governments is still in its infancy. The publications provided by an international group of scientists (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) have encountered skepticism, especially since some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger). In any case, some governments’ publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed.

It seems to me that the time has come that one of our top scientific organisations should scrutinise, under the microscope, the work of the IPCC, in a critical and realistic way, and then present the resulting conclusions to the German public in a comprehensible manner ….

The Max-Plank-Gesellschaft is Germany’s most eminent science organisation, and that Helmut Schmidt should deliver his lecture there is highly symbolic. But in calling for an investigation by one of Germany’s “top scientific organisations”, Schmidt shows that he only appreciates part of the problem, which is the integrity of the IPCC. An equal problem in nearly all western countries (Russia perhaps excluded) is the integrity of their national science academies and leading organisations, nearly all of whom, under the leadership of the Royal Society of London, have been acting as cheerleaders for the IPCC for the last ten years or more. Remember, too, that no fewer than three independent inquiries into last year’s Climategate (leaked email) scandal at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, ended up as anodyne whitewashes, and this despite the undoubted “distinction” of the chairmen of the inquiries.

Helmut Schmidt is undoubtedly right to call for a searching inquiry into the IPCC, but any such inquiry will need to be conducted by a special, independent scientific audit group with full legal powers. For, to be effective, any review of the IPCC is going to need to also investigate the actions of other leading national and international science organisations.


Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.


Translation courtesy of Dr Benny Peiser, Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Further comment and access to the full lecture (in German) available through the GWPF website here…

About these ads

112 thoughts on “Helmut Schmidt calls for IPCC inquiry

  1. Oh dear, how long before poor old Helmut gets a shafting from the warmista front. Let’s see will they use the oil tactic, the tobacco scam or maybe the good old, in the pockets of industry scare?

  2. “An equal problem in nearly all western countries (Russia perhaps excluded) is the integrity of their national science academies and leading organisations, nearly all of whom, under the leadership of the Royal Society of London, have been acting as cheerleaders for the IPCC for the last ten years or more.”

    This is the first time I am aware of, Anthony, that you have written that national science academies and leading organisations have looked at climate science and reached a conclusion that none of their peers disagrees with. They (including the Russian Academy of Sciences) signed off on a joint statement several years ago that stated: “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring” and “it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.” (source: http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)

    Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart? I’m really curious how you answer that question.

  3. I was going to check one word and a name, it turns out two words:

    First, “some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger).” From http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/mojib-latif-on-zdf-fraud-to-public.html I see Betrüger is not a person, (but still a discredited climate scientist!):

    German is my first language, too, and I would translate Mojib Latif’s sentence like this:

    “This is a very obvious fraud, on the public and on the colleague in question. One has to categorically reject such a thing and we must now try, should such things really have happened, to make sure they don’t happen again next time.”

    On a sliding scale of words refering to matters of dishonesty, “Betrug” is the strongest and most serious accusation, used in the sense of criminal deception. As even in Germany libel cases are no longer quite so rare, using this word can be quite risky. Note that the ZDF itself calls this “dubious goings on” (“unsauberes Handeln”) and does not itself accuse the IPCC of fraud. Mojib Latif, who is entirely apologetic about the other mistakes pointed out in the ZDF report, uses “Betrug” very deliberately, when referring to the IPCC’s misrepresentation of Roger’s work, but covers himself when he adds “wenn sie [solche Dinge] tatsaechlich vorgekommen sind” – “wenn” could be translated even stronger as “if” and not just “should have” but it’s unclear from his words how much doubt he meant to throw in there.

    The other word, anodyne, is in “no fewer than three independent inquiries into last year’s Climategate … ended up as anodyne whitewashes….” I first encountered anodyne in a US 1st Circuit Court ruling against my wife early in her law career. It turns out Judge Selya uses his extensive vocabulary in all his opinions, including those on Puerto Rico cases, which is also in the 1st District.

    In Werme v. Merrill, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1265262.html , there is

    In rapid succession Werme then brought her campaign to the Secretary of State and, failing to obtain redress, sought a judicial anodyne.

    From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anodyne

    adj.
    1. Capable of soothing or eliminating pain.
    2. Relaxing: anodyne novels about country life.
    n.
    1. A medicine, such as aspirin, that relieves pain.
    2. A source of soothing comfort.

    In my wife’s case, I think it was used in the sense of “judicial relief”. In the present sense it’s used to reject the Climategate reviews. Sometimes “whitewash” isn’t strong enough.

  4. This is indeed the problem, because who will investigate the investigators?

    It would be tragic if Schmidt’s call for investigations involved another round of wholly ineffective sham enquiries, deliberately framed so as to avoid dealing with the most contentious issues. Can you imagine an equiry led by the German equivalent of a Paul Nurse? If this was to happen, the foregone conclusions would provide more amunition for the warmists propaganda machine. You can already see the MSM preparing the headlines – IPCC vindicated by top German scientific organisation.

    Maybe it would be better if Schmidt was derided by the warmists and the sham investigation never held.

  5. I would hope that other “elder statesmen” are encouraged to comment likewise as there must be some who know, or at least suspect, that the glib statements of some scientists who work in closed circles are mere conjectures.

  6. Of course the hoax will not end. They will just reform under a new set of initials. Or perhaps with a new pollutant that has, coincidentally, exactly the same cure as the older one. Vegetarianism, no private vehicles, a vastly restricted life style for all Westerners, the de-industrialization of the West.
    Meet the new villain : nitrogen.

    http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=14199622

  7. Well he has gravitas and is a highly respected figure.
    I think if a properly independant audit were conducted, the German people would accept it and inter-alia, much of the rest of Europe.

  8. Vuk etc. says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:17 pm
    Debate
    Helmut Schmidt vs. Gavin A. Schmidt
    LOL
    ——

    How about Helmut Schmidt and Harrison Schmitt VS. Gavin Schmidt? :)

  9. ‘because who will investigate the investigators’

    The interesting truth is that only they can and Judith Curry has begun that process.. others will inevitably follow

  10. Helmut Schmidt is undoubtedly right to call for a searching inquiry into the IPCC, but any such inquiry will need to be conducted by a special, independent scientific audit group with full legal powers.

    Perhaps the UN could convene such an audit group?

    LOL
    For, to be effective, any review of the IPCC is going to need to also investigate the actions of other leading national and international science organisations.

    I disagree – a proper review of the IPCC could be effective indeed. It then, no doubt, would lead to similar proper reviews of other “leading national and international science organisations”.

    Cut off the head, as it were.

  11. Debate
    Helmut Schmidt vs. Gavin A. Schmidt
    LOL

    That would surely give me “The Schmidts”

    :)

    Tim

  12. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    [....]
    Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?

    It is more a case of a small group of people, purported scientists and non-scientists, with a political philosophy collaborating to infiltrate the fields of government, education, science, and the arts; who appoint their more unscrupulous members to positions of authority; then discriminate against the people they target as their enemies to deny them education, employment, appointments to positions of authority, or a voice in the media or government; indoctrinate their opponents’ children and the general public to accept false propaganda without objective scrutiny. After a century of these efforts, they succeed in denying the unorganized opposition and often unsuspecting victims a voice in public affairs, academia, and the professional scientific organizations which falsely purport to represent the views of the majority of their memberships. Finally, the majority of the members of the professional organizations find they are being shut out of the decisionmaking and policymaking of their own organizations by a militant minority who have seized and refuse to relinquish control of the leadership.

    Lenin and Stalin were quite successful in seizing power in this way, although they took shortcuts by murdering their opponents.

  13. I think it has now become more than clear that any genuine independent scientist who was asked to audit the activities of the IPCC would be risking his career and those of his families if he did not come up with the required answer of “No problem here, mate”.

    The independent scientists – in order to have any credibility and also to be immune from career blackmail – would have to be drawn from those individuals not: i) in government employment, ii) feeding from the grants trough, or iii) associated with ‘big oil’.

    Unfortunately, not too many experts on climate can avoid being placed in one of these categories.

  14. It’s very interesting that such comments should come from Helmut Schmidt. A very brave (Iron Cross in WWll despite being of Jewish descent), clever and talented man(classical pianist).

    He founded, with Gerald Ford, the American Enterprise Institute World Forum. I don’t know much about this secretive annual gathering other than that its participants are powerful and influential, international businessmen, politicians and academics.

    His opinion on the IPCC and what it stands for might perhaps be explained by his dislike of idealism, of which he said, “People who have a vision should go see a doctor.”

  15. The climategate emails revealed the CRU crew had to cook the books to make CO2 appear as the driving force causing any warming. It appears they picked the wrong gas for political reasons. You can investigate them all you want but the fact remains they can not prove CO2 will cause any warming or future catastrophies period. Any conclusions they come up with are political wishful thinking at best. I say defund these frauds and make any investigation have teeth with jail time and large fines for those convicted of fraud.

  16. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart? I’m really curious how you answer that question.
    ========================================================
    Noelle, they only look at trends.

    “several years ago” when these scientists signed on, the trends looked like temperatures were increasing at a unprecedented rate.

    Just like in the 70’s when it looked like the trend was going down = coming ice age.

    Our science, no matter how big the computer is, can only predict trends.

    They are really just not that smart………….

  17. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?

    As it so happens, you have answered your own question. Yes! Except “scientists” are a small part of it.
    Below is a link that gives some of the background. Then you should search WUWT and other sites to learn who actually wrote, and how many scientists actually fully agreed with, the IPPC report. How many reviewer’s comments were ignored, how many non-peer reviewed papers were cited, and so on. Please spend a couple of days researching this issue and report back.

    “UN Infects Science with Cancer of Global Warming”
    Edward F Blick 2008

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf

  18. I feel very sad that in this controversy I could no longer accept the Royal Society as an independent arbiter.

    Sold out to the noisiest bidder.

    Robert Hooke, on the other hand, might have poisoned himself to seek the truth.

  19. The IPCC manual: How to Serve Man
    (screams of “it’s a cookbook” heard in the background)

  20. Please! Be kind to German & European Hero! He was handling “the leaden times” (Die bleierne Zeit). Also he is also one of the most respected Europeans! Cold war stayed cold also because of him.
    Note that my political opinions are not the same as his are.

  21. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Pay attention will you! The article was written by Bob Carter not Anthony.

    What I find incredulous is that anyone believes anything that comes out of a United Nations organization. Name one thing the UN has gotten right! From Oil-for-Food to the Rwandan genocide debacle to human rights, the UN and their corrupt affiliated organizations have cocked-up (to put it mildly) everything they have ever under-taken. The UN is the most corrupt organization ever to spring from the mind of man.

  22. There was an effort to get Helmut Schmidt listed as a skeptic on his wiki page (see the Discussion tab). Of course Kim Dabelstein Petersen stepped in and put an end to that. Can’t have a respected socialist and progressive as a skeptic can we? Their tentacles are everywhere.

  23. “Sir Crispin Tickell was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows. Green College merged with Templeton College in 2008 to become Green Templeton College, located at what was previously Green College.”

    Nice Trustee on the board of the Thomson family Foundation… He coopted Monbiot!

  24. I wonder if some of the commercial certifying companies that operate under the ISO9000 umbrella would be better choice for an audit of the IPCC. These companies, even a non-profit organization like UL, have a great deal to lose if they were to lose the confidence of the public. There is no way that the IPCC could pass such an audit.

    One of the simple rules is, “Say what you do, and do what you say.” The IPCC has stated that they will be an open organization but fail to disclose requested documents. Fail.

    “Methods and procedures will be verified and validated.” Epic fail.

    The tough part will be to force the governments to cease funding when these organizations fail to be certified. The certifying organization needs to be susceptible to lawsuits to keep them honest.

  25. ‘Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    ‘Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart? I’m really curious how you answer that question.’

    Follow the money. A lot of people made a lot of money doing research for the IPCC to show “warming” but it took “political scientists” to link the warming to CO2.

  26. @ Ric “I see Betrüger is not a person”

    in German, this word can only be employed to mean a person committing fraud and nothing else, i.e. a fraudster. It depends on the context whether this has a criminal connotation or not.

    Also, the German word is not softer, as suggested elsewhere; it is the exact equivalent.

  27. CaryB says:
    March 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Who is Max Plank? ;). Is this an Americanism or did you mean Max Planck?
    *******************************************************************
    Max Plank is a relative of Max Headroom, obviously.

  28. The conspiracy theorists are out in full force today. Not only is the IPCC in on the conspiracy, but so are every major scientific organization in the world, the media, education systems, governments, much of private industry and countless tens of thousands of individuals. These organizations and people have co-opted the physical laws of the universe to be a part of the conspiracy also. Wow.

  29. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    “Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?”

    Basically yes. They like riding on the gravy train.

  30. sceptical,

    Conspiracies exist. Do you deny that fact?

    The Left made hay out of Senator McCarthy’s false claim that he had a list of names of Communists in the State Department. His “list” turned out to be a laundry list. Ever since, “conspiracy theorist” has had an unsavory connotation.

    But conspiracies always exist. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    Replace “prices” with “taxes” and you have today’s situation.

  31. In what other branch of science are political interest so intense and the outcome so important to politicians.

    President Bush called on NASA to investigate climate change and look at the results. NASA promoted climate change on steroids and in lock step with the IPCC. Political interest should be included in any investigation and independent of political influence. If that is possible.

  32. @sceptical says: March 7, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    All those institutions you listed, not conspirators but willing dupes !!

  33. Noelle,
    I would like to add some thoughts to your question that I do not believe any one else has touched on.

    Most of the “scientists” in the national academies are not atmospheric scientists (AS), so the majority of the members rely on the minority of academy members with a background in AS. Seems reasonable, but there are two problems:

    — Researcher in AS are overwhelmingly computer modelers and, too often, uncritically believe the results of those completely unproven (as forecast tools) models.

    — Second is “groupthink.” I am a meteorologist and have spent a fair amount of time around the major atmospheric science research centers and the amount of groupthink is stunning.

    Three years ago I attended a meeting at one of those centers and we were broken into focus groups. One hundred percent of the (well qualified) participants not associated with the research center had one view of an important AS issue and one hundred percent of the people who worked at the research center had the opposite view. This was shocking to me as the people from outside the center were from all over North America, had very diverse backgrounds, and were at least as well qualified scientifically as the people who worked at the center. Nevertheless, the people who worked center at the did little but reinforce each other throughout the session. It was the first time I have witnessed that dynamic.

    Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist, calls this “tribalism” which is right on the mark. It is a serious problem in AS, especially as it pertains to the global warming issue.

    Mike

  34. The vast majority are ‘dupes’, those already re-educated to follow the AGW meme; those in control and knowingly misusing the science are fewer, but powerful in their connections. Goverments are in on it.. It doesn’t matter which ideology, there’s a lot of money being made by some while the majority are being fleeced by ‘green taxes’ and so on. The turning point, if there is one, won’t be reached until enough of the plebs realise they’ve been duped.

  35. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    “Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart? I’m really curious how you answer that question.”

    Most likely, they are like climate scientists and do not understand the notion of physical hypothesis. As Roy Spencer has so clearly shown in his book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder,” Warmista have no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain or predict the forcings, such as those involving clouds, that must exist if CO2 is to cause a dangerous rise in temperature.

    So, I will turn your question back to you: Why has no one (NO ONE) from one of these august scientific bodies addressed the question of physical hypotheses? Why has no one addressed the main thesis of Spencer’s book? Is it a conspiracy to protect the Warmista so that the public will not discover that they are a bunch of idiot savants whose specialized knowledge of computer simulations is of no benefit to them or anyone?

    Sir, the necessary physical hypotheses do not exist. There is no argument about that. Gavin Schmidt cannot produce them. James Hansen cannot produce them. You cannot produce them. Until they are produced, climate scientists should have enough humility to admit that their science is in its infancy and they have no ability whatsoever to explain or predict future warming caused by manmade CO2.

  36. As a member of the Academy I can assure you that most of my colleagues don’t have the foggiest idea whether global warming is real or not, and don’t particularly care. What they do care about is the avalanche of money that is flowing from the federal government for research on “green energy.” Nothing like it has been seen since the glorious “go to the moon” days of the 60’s (and, yes, I remember them well).

    This is the “iron rice bowl” of the 21st century, and a scientist with a lab to support will seriously consider selling his first-born to keep it alive.

    Hell, if Obama’s “ballooning of the green” budget goes through, I’ll probably send in a proposal myself (that, hopefully, will surreptitiously address some more real scientific issues). If they’re dropping money from helicopters …

    Conspiracy? In the scientific community, there’s no conspiracy. “Conspiracy” implies secrecy, and this boondoggle is no secret at all.

  37. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?

    There are a half-dozen reasons, all of which contributed to this blunder. The main one is what one of the skeptical scientists who was in on the behind-the-scenes activity at the beginning (Spencer or Pielke I think) blames it on: It was (and largely is) a part of the conventional wisdom that “we’re going to have to move away from fossil fuels anyway, so it would be good to get started as soon as possible, even if the case for CAWG isn’t as strong as its advocates make out, or even if it’s not true at all.”

    Further, I suspect there was an acceptance of warmist claims that renewable energy devices would not be terribly expensive once they moved down the “learning curve” and into mass production–which would happen once they were jump-started by injections of government-mandated cash–which would require scientific societies to sound the alarm and get governments on board the bandwagon. Why be picky when there’s no downside, they figured.

    Another reason was the way which this controversy was framed–as a case similar to the banning of CFCs (ozone layer) and unfiltered coal emissions (acid rain), with “skeptics” being cast in the role of those (few, crank, paid-for) scientists who doubted or opposed such measures in the beginning, before the case became overwhelmingly clear.

    Another reason was the apparent consensus of climatologists. Ordinarily this should carry great weight in deciding which side of a controversy is “fringey,” but for a variety of reasons climatology is a special case–the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

    Another reason was the general bias among “thinking people” in favor of an environmentalist perspective on issues affecting the environment. Why not be a little precautionary about it, the conventional wisdom went (and goes).

    Another reason was that at the time these endorsements were made, the temperature was rising, ARGO buoys hadn’t been deployed, and alarmist projections that the rise would continue at that rate seemed fairly plausible. So why take a chance by delaying, ran the thinking.

    Another reason was the well-funded and well-organized sales job the alarmists presented, and (I suspect) the well-executed internal “politicking” they engaged in to get the votes lined up beforehand.

    Another reason (I suspect) was that the skeptical opposition was unorganized and hadn’t yet gotten its ducks in a row–and that it probably wasn’t given much of a chance to present its arguments in person to these societies. More likely, these societies were fed superficial refutations of skeptical arguments by the alarmist activists who had their ear.

    Well that’s half-a-dozen reasons. I can think of a couple more, but I’ll end here.

  38. I predict that there will be an inquiry into the IPCC. It will be held in about 2040. It will be held to try and discover why the IPCC were so conservative in their predictions….

  39. Since we’re making predictions, I predict that John Brookes will be restrained in a rubber room in 2040.☺

  40. Mike Smith,

    Thank you for addressing Noelle’s question. I think that to a certain extent it was an important question that needed to be given something other than a glib answer.

    Noelle,

    Further to Mike’s comments, scientists are experts who focus on very narrow areas of expertise. They want to believe that their work is important and that their opinions in their areas of expertise should be heeded.

    For scientists, having the UN convene a panel of scientific experts to provide advise to policy makers is a step in the right direction that should, logically, lead to other scientific panels on other subjects in the future.

    National Academies are predisposed to believing that their advise on their areas of expertise should be heeded. Therefore when another scientific panel comes out with an assessment report they are predisposed to endorsing the recommendations. This is not a conspiracy but very human nature.

    Unfortunately the National Academies are bureaucracies vested with self interest and there is nothing more difficult than convincing another human to change their mind. The flaws revealled in the IPCC processes and reports have only recently surfaced. It will take time for the National Academies to notice these deficiencies and slowly change the course of their endorsements. In the end we probably won’t really notice the change unless some diligent bloggers keep their eyes on the prize.

    I hope this helps. More questions?

  41. Theo Goodwin:

    Why has no one (NO ONE) from one of these august scientific bodies addressed the question of physical hypotheses?

    I’m going to turn this one back at you: Do you actually believe the premise of your question? That the physical mechanisms behind AGW are all hand-waving? That “the necessary physical hypotheses do not exist”? Really?

    Have you ever read any of the papers on the topic? Or those cited in, say, Chapter 8 of the AR4 (reading it won’t burn your eyes or grow hair on your palms, my promise)?

    It takes an impressive amount of willful ignorance to argue not that the hypotheses and theories in the climate science literature are flawed, which is a premise that can be debated, but that they don’t even exist, which is, frankly, a very difficult position to maintain.

    I do not hear real, published scientists like Spencer or Lindzen claim that there’s no physical basis for AGW. Their arguments focus on reasons why the consensus climate sensitivity is too high. Lindzen has made predictions about future warming; what does that make him?

    I appreciate Spencer because I like how he approaches thinking about the data. What I don’t like about his current line of thinking is that he proposes an alternative theory (“it’s all internal forcing driving clouds”), but doesn’t get very far explaining how exactly that happens, and why. It’s kind of a random walk, just because.

    A thorough (3 parts!) examination of Spencer’s work came out recently. Anyone with an open mind should give it a read; while it’s quite critical of Spencer, the criticisms focus on the science.

  42. PS: Here are the “couple more reasons” I didn’t mention a few posts above:

    Guild solidarity. The situation was framed (or reflexively viewed without any external forcing) as yet-another-case-of-Outsider-Neanderthals-vs.-Enlightened-Scientists. I.e., Us. vs. Them. Tribal loyalty kicked in.

    The Science-Guy mindset. Many scientific bigshots are marinated in a mindset expressed by Lord Kelvin’s dictum that if you can’t talk about something in numbers you don’t really know much about it. From this many of them unconsciously assume that if you CAN talk about something in quantitative terms–as computer climate-modelers were doing–you DO know something about it. That’s misleading, if climate is a chaotic system over long periods of time, and you can’t compute it with “forcing”-type equations.

  43. John Brookes says:
    March 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    I predict that there will be an inquiry into the IPCC. It will be held in about 2040. It will be held to try and discover why the IPCC were so conservative in their predictions….

    Wanna bet? Go here:

    https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

  44. I agree with Professor Carter that the IPCC needs auditing; the question which international body has the acceptable compentency to do this;
    There is no body that I can think of which would be accepted by both sides of the debate (the warmists and the sceptics)
    My view is that the IPCC should be disbanded and that each Govt who proposes or has followed its findings should have a Royal Commission to determine whether or not the IPCC findings in respect to carbon dioxide are sustainable or not
    That means that NZ, UK; the European Union etc should have a Royal Commission
    and that includes Aust whose Govt is currently proposing a ‘carbon tax’
    The IPCC has in my view been discredited so there should be no reliance on its findings any more
    The UN in my view has passed its ‘use by’ date and now it’s up to each country to determine whether or not there is AGW and whether or not as a result there should be a tax on man made carbon dioxide
    My view – I prefer Professor Carter’s view – (most diplomatically expressed by him) adaption to natural climate changes should be what is concentrated on – and for each country that is different
    This AGW stuff propogated by the UN is the greatest pseudo scientific fraud of our livetimes
    So let’s hold each our own Govts accountable for each of their Royal Commission findings if my proposal is adopted

  45. PPS: Another two reasons:

    Faddishness. Fads can sweep through scientific fields for decades before being discarded or forgotten. Psychology, medicine, physics, cosmology, and ecology (among others) have had such episodes. There’s a book about how academia in particular is liable to this phenomenon, Flavor of the Month, by Joel Best.

    Special interest. One of the main jobs of most scientific societies today is lobbying government for more resources–and advising governments on where to spend it. In this aspect they are special interest trade groups. If one of their “brothers” or clients comes to them asking help in getting government to move in some direction, the bigwigs in these societies are inclined to assent, like the officials of any trade-association.

    For more on the trade-association aspect of “Science” today, see the knowledgeable and well-reviewed exposé, Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion, by Daniel Greenberg.

  46. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    “Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?”

    No, just climate scientologists, big oil companies, insurance companies, governments and self appointed demi-gods. No scientists.

  47. Phil’s Dad [March 7, 2011 at 5:36 pm] says:

    “We need a new Schwindler’s list.”

    ROTFL! I like it. Stealing it (as Swindlers’ List). Thank you!

  48. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    “Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists?”

    Not a conspiracy in the sense you might suggest but more of a group think.

    I’ve just retired as a British [middling] university lecturer. Just before I left we had a presentation by all the young environmental research staff on their research activities. About 20 of them. They ALL fitted CAGW into their research, however tenuous. Some of the linkages were quite embarrassing. They have to do it to get the money.

    For instance one attributed a local change in some sea life to global warming. It took me a minute to check the local sea records to see there had been no change in 30 years. It didn’t phase them in the slightest. Wonder why I’m a sceptic??

  49. Those who experienced the leading style and integrity of H. Schmidt know, that when he asks to scrutinize the work of the IPPC he means exactly what he says; he does not ask to “whitewash”. When he says “Betrüger” he really means “Fraudster”: H. Schmidt (unlike the other Schmidt) has always been very careful in choosing his words.
    It is worthwhile to put the post in the context of the H. Schmidt’s whole keynote speech: “Responsibility of Scientific Research in the 21th Century”. The speech was delivered in January 2011 and has not been published by the MSM, which is logical because HS is too popular to openly present and debate his opinions when they are politically inconvenient.
    These are the chapters of this long, remarkable address to the Max Planck Institute:
    Problems of humanity
    Globalization of the economy
    Worldwide military upscaling
    Global Warming
    Urgent appeal (to the research community)
    Common Rationality (research community)
    Special problems of the Europeans
    Aging of populations
    A large, inter-European, inter-disciplinary research undertaking
    Science and politics
    Splitting of the top (research) organizations

    As can be seen, “Global Warming” was just a small part of it. While the whole text is too extensive and would exceed the scope of this blog, it makes sense to read the full “Global Warming” chapter. I translated this piece. (Some English-polishing required).
    “Global Warming”
    “In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are at the same time concerned by the phenomenon of global warming and its supposed consequences. We know that there have always been natural ice ages and warm periods; however we don’t know how big the present and future contribution of man to today’s global warming is. The so called Climate Policy operated internationally by many governments is still in its infancy. The documents delivered so far by an international group of scientists (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) encounter skepticism, especially since some of the participating scientists have proven to be fraudsters. In any case, the objectives publicly stated by some governments are less scientifically, but -in fact- just politically justified.
    It seems to me that time has come that one of our top scientific organizations critically and realistically scrutinizes under the magnifier the work of the IPCC and presents the resulting conclusions to the Public of our country in an understandable way.
    In order to effectively reduce the human contribution to global warming, it seems to be important to switch in the 21st Century from hydrocarbons to other energy sources. This will also be necessary in the long term, because the existing reserves of crude oil, natural gas, coal, lignite, etc., are limited. Nuclear, solar and wind energies will come into consideration for the next decades (hydropower certainly only for a few geographic exceptions).
    The European countries have opted for different energy policies, so far: England, Holland and Norway rely on their own reserves of hydrocarbons, France has made its electricity supply largely on nuclear energy; Germany is in the process to do without nuclear power as well as without its own – very expensive – coal and relies increasingly on imported hydrocarbons. Other European countries behave similarly. Solar and wind energies play a secondary but increasing role.
    There is no common energy policy of the European Union for the time being. However, it is fairly certain that an answer to this question must be found over the next decades. In particular, the inevitable transition from hydrocarbons to other energy sources requires at first high expenditures in research and development, especially in Basic Research, to make renewable energy usable as suitable alternative.”

  50. I am German.
    And though Helmut Schmidt was Chancellor here in my young years, he is probably the most influential figure in Germany.
    Measured not so much in direct powers (anymore), as he is no longer in office, but as the publisher of “Die Zeit”, a highly influential, intelectual and liberal weekly magazine.
    He still is very well connected to national and international powerhouses.
    He was the Chancellor who – against the left wing/peace-movement’s protests- had the Pershing II installed in Germany. After he lost his office 1983 (to Helmut Kohl), most people said he was the right man in the wrong (Socialist) party.

    And whenever he gives a speech, he has thought things through and has the interests of a peaceful Europe always on his mind (he ie. suggested that Germany has to come up for European debts – not very popular here).

    This for me means that he perceives the Global Warming hysteria as a threat to European stability and has strong doubts about the value and reasons of the IPCC.
    I for my part am very suprised (or am I) that I have heard NOTHING of this speech on German News. Nothing, Nada. I have to read blogs in English to learn about this speech weeks later.

    And what is the talk about conspiracy? The whole life consists of small and large conspiracies, starting by not telling your wife that you betrayed her. Or by lying to keep your job or get the payrise…
    most scientist just live very well from this Global Warming alarm, they do not want to return the Nobel Price for peace (awarded to the IPCC in 1997) and I am sure being famous improves the mating chances.

    If we look at history it consists of conspiracies, including but not starting with the Catholic Church, Cardinal Richelieu, Potemkin etc…
    I cannot understand that people always tend to think that “this time its different”, be it with shares which will never come down or democracy, which for sure is a system that is absolutely lie-free…intelligent people often are very naive or stupid (and socialists and liberals are in my experience mostly very intelligent)
    Now the Catholic Church is called IPCC, insists that climate rotates around man and is afraid to take back some claims because of all the niceties and the fear of punishment… how human

    Only that they are preaching more and more with their pants down, or better with scientific data not showing a warming anymore (since 1998-2005). And they wre right that earth did warm up (as it cooled down before). They put a CO2 chart next to it and voila…publish or perish…

    But they know that the audience will start to laugh soon, and fear is a strong motivator. The media does not want to be called names because they were willingly or unwillingly part of this…

    and this “conspiracy” is so large because many, many chimed in and benefited from this panic, especially the media

    just human

    Daniel

  51. The remarkable point about this speech is not that Helmut Schmidt called for an inquiry into the IPCC – the remarkable point is that he used the word ‘fraudsters’ (‘Betrueger’ stays the same in singular as in plural) in front of this august German scientific society.
    He’s been a politicians in the topmost positions a country offers: as Minister of Defense, Finance, and finally as Chancellor. So he most certainly knows his way around, and knows what impact these words will have – and on whom.
    I think this was aimed straight at the members of the Max Planck society who have been too cowardly to set their own house in order, because Schmidt knows full well that by mentioning the IPCC all the German participants therein are included.

    I hope those who have been fence-sitting about the shenanigans of their colleagues will now feel encouraged to do something about them.

    As for smearing him – teeheehee! He delights in being totally un-PC, and even in his 93rd year, he’s not stopped smoking, and will light up even in places where it is forbidden. So smearing with ‘Big Tobacco’ will run off him like water off a duck’s back. In fact, he probably supported Big Tobacco, by smoking all his life …

  52. #
    #
    Grumbler says:
    March 8, 2011 at 12:41 am

    For instance one attributed a local change in some sea life to global warming. It took me a minute to check the local sea records to see there had been no change in 30 years. It didn’t phase them in the slightest. Wonder why I’m a sceptic??

    Would it faze them if you showed them is was just a phase? ;PpPp
    Not related to the fazes of the faces of the Moon’s phases, tho’. :DD

  53. typo: “it was just a phase”
    and maybe: “the fazing of the phases of the Moon’s faces”.
    or SLT.
    8-)

  54. Matt says:
    March 7, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    “@ Ric “I see Betrüger is not a person”
    in German, this word can only be employed to mean a person committing fraud and nothing else, i.e. a fraudster. It depends on the context whether this has a criminal connotation or not.
    Also, the German word is not softer, as suggested elsewhere; it is the exact equivalent.”

    I can confirm that.

    “federico says:
    March 8, 2011 at 1:05 am

    Those who experienced the leading style and integrity of H. Schmidt know, that when he asks to scrutinize the work of the IPPC he means exactly what he says; he does not ask to “whitewash”. When he says “Betrüger” he really means “Fraudster”: H. Schmidt (unlike the other Schmidt) has always been very careful in choosing his words.”

    Federico is right. Helmut Schmidt is one of the most experienced German statesmen. He used the term “Betrüger” in front of an audience of researchers; his late wife of 60 years Hannelore “Loki” Schmidt was an academic (Biologist IIRC). He knows what he says and he means it.

  55. syphax says:
    March 7, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    You do not address the matter of physical hypotheses needed to explain and predict the forcings that would cause dangerous warming. The 19th Century hypotheses about CO2 in the atmosphere are acceptable physical hypotheses. But they do not address the necessary forcings.

    Your post reveals two things about you. One, you refer to Spencer’s book but you do not address his claims about physical hypotheses. Instead, you say you do not like his alternative theory. That was not the question I asked. You reveal that you are not a scientist when you raise the question of an alternative theory, something that is totally irrelevant to my question.

    Your post is intentionally equivocal. You refer to physical hypotheses without distinguishing between the 19th century hypotheses about CO2 and the physical hypotheses about forcings that are essential to Warmista claims today. That ploy has become a standard Warmista trick. Gavin Schmidt uses it all the time. When he says that Warmista have physical hypotheses, he means the 19th century hypotheses. He knows that he does not have the physical hypotheses about forcings that are absolutely necessary to support a Warmista position. You and he are engaging in intentional duplicity. Can you not help yourselves? Are you like teenagers who cannot control your impulses? Do you have any idea what my opinion of you is? Do you really think that I would waste my time trying to engage you in what you might call science?

  56. Two more reasons scientific societies endorsed CAWG (this makes a dozen):

    Bandwagon effect, or domino effect. Once three or four scientific societies had endorsed the alarmist interpretation, the rest fell resistlessly into line, since failing to do so would amount to saying their colleagues were wrong.

    Progressive drift. A conservative posited a “law,” based on observation of instances like the Ford Foundation, that “every organization that is not explicitly conservative becomes a liberal organization over time.” I.e., becomes more credulous and accepting of top-down measures.

  57. val majkus says:
    March 7, 2011 at 11:21 pm
    “I agree with Professor Carter that the IPCC needs auditing; the question which international body has the acceptable compentency to do this;”

    There are now sceptical bodies controlling Congressional Committees in the USA. At this time in the sordid history of Climategate, those bodies are the only bodies in the world who have credibility. You should look to them for guidance.

  58. syphax writes:

    “I appreciate Spencer because I like how he approaches thinking about the data. What I don’t like about his current line of thinking is that he proposes an alternative theory (“it’s all internal forcing driving clouds”), but doesn’t get very far explaining how exactly that happens, and why. It’s kind of a random walk, just because.”

    Sir, you are prisoner to a delusion. There is no alternative theory. And there is no theory. There is no set of physical hypotheses that can explain forcings. Spencer can only point the way that research should proceed. Someone has to do the research. No one has done the research. Somebody has to do the legwork to create reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict changes in cloud behavior in an atmosphere with increasing concentrations of CO2. Until some reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses are created, hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict cloud forcings, there is no theory of a physical basis for dangerous temperature increases from manmade CO2.

  59. Noelle says:
    March 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Erroneous scientific group think is nothing new in history. Especially when it is politically and economically expedient to do so.

  60. History of man is full of intrigues, schemes, secret plans, plots, conspiracies etc. to gain power or/and fame. Of course that neither proves or disproves AGW as such a thing. I think most readers here would agree that climategate proved at least some secret cooperation to hide information ?

  61. federico says:
    March 8, 2011 at 1:05 am

    Those who experienced the leading style and integrity of H. Schmidt know, that when he asks to scrutinize the work of the IPPC he means exactly what he says; he does not ask to “whitewash”.

    Note that Schmidt did not say whitewash, Bob Carter referred to the existing reviews as whitewashes.

  62. Syphax said:

    “A thorough (3 parts!) examination of Spencer’s work came out recently. Anyone with an open mind should give it a read; while it’s quite critical of Spencer, the criticisms focus on the science.”

    Most of the commenters here seem to have ignored Syphax’s appeal. As the one who wrote the review of Spencer’s latest book, I’d like to see what people like you have to say about it. In my opinion, there isn’t much left of Spencer’s recent work… but I may be biased. Here’s the URL again:

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

  63. Concerning the existence or not of a conspiracy: the absolute silence of the German press about this speech is proof of its reality. Game, set, match.

    To German readers here: as H.S. is publisher of “Die Zeit”, is there any chance it will print his speech, or report it (despite its liberal prejudices)?

  64. Noelle: “Why is that? Is this some sort of big, international conspiracy of scientists? Or are all these countries’ best and brightests scientists really just not that smart?”

    What you are really asking is: “Do you think 1000 and 1 scientists can be wrong?”

    The answer is: Yes. And the history of science is full of examples.

    To name just one: Wegener’s idea of moving continents, the precursor of what we now call Plate Tectonics, was laughed at because none of those 1000 and 1 contempory scientist could think of a mechanism. And because they considered themselves the experts, it could not possibly be right.

    In the case of the signatories of the declaration: I’m pretty sure that none of them would recognise the Eddington-Milne equations for radiation transport, let alone solve them.

  65. Brian H said on March 8, 2011 at 6:39 am

    To German readers here: as H.S. is publisher of “Die Zeit”, is there any chance it will print his speech, or report it (despite its liberal prejudices)?

    Yes, that’s correct. Helmut Schmidt is the publisher of “Die Zeit”. And yes, he went so far to document his own speech therein:

    Zusätzlich zu all den vorgenannten, von Menschen verursachten Problemen werden wir beunruhigt von dem Phänomen der globalen Erwärmung und den ihr unterstellten Konsequenzen. Wir wissen, dass es natürlicherweise immer Eiszeiten und Warmzeiten gegeben hat; wir wissen jedoch nicht, wie groß gegenwärtig und künftig der von Menschen verursachte Beitrag zur globalen Erwärmung ist. Die von vielen Regierungen international betriebene sogenannte Klimapolitik steckt noch in ihren Anfängen. Die von einer internationalen Wissenschaftlergruppe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) bisher gelieferten Unterlagen stoßen auf Skepsis. Es scheint mir an der Zeit, dass eine unserer wissenschaftlichen Spitzenorganisationen die Arbeit des IPCC kritisch und realistisch unter die Lupe nimmt und sodann die sich ergebenden Schlussfolgerungen der öffentlichen Meinung unseres Landes in verständlicher Weise erklärt.

    http://www.zeit.de/2011/03/100-Jahre-KWG-Rede?page=3

    But do we perhaps miss something in this version? Yes, you’re right. Fraudsters apparently never harmed the reputation of good old IPCC. And did he really say that “some governments’ publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed”? Not acording to his own paper.

  66. When the letter c is sandwiched between s and e, it is always silent and superfluous except in the alternate spelling of ‘skeptic.’ So I can’t help but pronounce you sceptics as “septics.”

    That said, a little background in the history of science is called for. Back in the late 20’s the American Association of Petroleum Geologists took an official stand on the budding controversy over Continental Drift championed by Wegener. Egged on by the great British scientist Harold Jeffries, Wegener’s hypothesis was repudiated and ridiculed for the next 3 or 4 decades, until more obvious and less statistical evidence became available (that not only the shape but the statigraphy of opposing continental shelves matched went over the heads of almost all these scientists). Wegener really did prove his case, but the proof was not appreciated by the experts.

    Here in the U.S. we mostly fluoridate our water because all the dentists here are sure it’s a good thing. Most you Europeans don’t because you know better. Group think. Thirty years ago people here called fluoridation a communist plot, but as you former East Germans know, you were not liberated from fluoridation till the Wall came down. Thiomersal and other forms of mercury have been blamed for years on increasing autism rates, but it seems the scare was based on fraud at its outset. Even after the mercury vaccines were largely phasesd out autism diagnsis rates continued to climb, further casting doubt on the connection. But why do the rates climb? Probably due to increasing numbers of specialists who are trained to make the diagnosis.

    The foregoing illustrates how science usually works–not only in the 16th century but in the 20th and 21st centuries. Junk science is the rule. Incompetence is the rule. Group think is the rule. You just couldn’t get published if you sided with Wegener, except maybe in Australia or South Africa. And I could never get published in my local newspaper if I tried to repeat any of this, while the quacks and dupes can get in any time they want. And now the local Unitarians are behaving like radical fundamentalists, breaking the law to save the world. Michael Servetus had best not come to Utah. –AGF

  67. One nit to pick: I do not think Russia is part of the West. They are certainly not a first world nation.

  68. Barry Bickmore says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:24 am
    “about it. In my opinion, there isn’t much left of Spencer’s recent work… but I may be biased. Here’s the URL again:”

    Sorry, you lost me with the title of your website:
    “Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
    A Local Front in a Global Battle ”

    So you call people skeptical of AGW extremists. Telling attitude…

  69. Hugo M says:
    March 8, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Yes, you missed something. You missed the part that was deleted for the “Die Zeit”.

    Please read the original wording in the speech to the Max Planck Audience of January 11, 2011, which is available for the public:

    http://www.mpg.de/print/990353

    “Zusätzlich zu all den vorgenannten, von Menschen verursachten Problemen, werden wir gleichzeitig beunruhigt von dem Phänomen der globalen Erwärmung und der ihr unterstellten Konsequenzen. Wir wissen, daß es natürlicherweise immer Eiszeiten und Warmzeiten gegeben hat; wir wissen jedoch nicht, wie groß gegenwärtig und künftig der von Menschen verursachte Beitrag zur heutigen globalen Erwärmung ist. Die von vielen Regierungen international betriebene sogenannte Klimapolitik steckt noch in ihren Anfängen. Die von einer internationalen Wissenschaftlergruppe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) bisher gelieferten Unterlagen stoßen auf Skepsis, zumal einige der beteiligten Forscher sich als Betrüger erwiesen haben. Jedenfalls sind die von einigen Regierungen öffentlich genannten Zielsetzungen bisher weniger wissenschaftlich als vielmehr lediglich politisch begründet.
    Es scheint mir an der Zeit, daß eine unserer wissenschaftlichen Spitzenorganisationen die Arbeit des IPCC kritisch und realistisch unter die Lupe nimmt und sodann die sich ergebenden Schlußfolgerungen der öffentlichen Meinung unseres Landes in verständlicher Weise erklärt.”

    …and compare with your cited Zeit-Version

    The deleted part is:

    ” …zumal einige der beteiligten Forscher sich als Betrüger erwiesen haben. Jedenfalls sind die von einigen Regierungen öffentlich genannten Zielsetzungen bisher weniger wissenschaftlich als vielmehr lediglich politisch begründet”.

    Translated:

    “…especially since some of the participating scientists have proven to be fraudsters. In any case, the objectives publicly stated by some governments are less scientifically, but -in fact- just politically justified.”

  70. federico said March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Yes, you missed something. You missed the part that was deleted for the “Die Zeit”.

    Frederico, thank you very much for your effort. But let me clarify this: it wasn’t exactly me who left out anything, except, perhaps, a clear wording. It was Mr. Schmidt himself who, in his capacity as being a publisher of “Die Zeit”, either authorized or even directed the omission of these critical parts of his speech from an article in his own journal. If only someone could translate the passage from the “Zeit”, for everyone here to understand that by these two ommisions the meaning of the paragraph had changed course by 180°. Now it’s us, the people, who (as usual) do not understand anything without the generous help of a group of top notch scientists explaining to us at least the basics. Hmm, simply using the translation from the top of this page, the mutilated version reads:

    [...] The climate policy adopted by many governments is still in its infancy. The publications provided by an international group of scientists (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) have encountered skepticism. It seems to me that the time has come that one of our top scientific organisations should scrutinise, under the microscope, the work of the IPCC, in a critical and realistic way, and then present the resulting conclusions to the German public in a comprehensible manner [...]

    http://www.zeit.de/2011/03/100-Jahre-KWG-Rede?page=3

  71. DirkH says:

    “Sorry, you lost me with the title of your website:
    ‘Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
    A Local Front in a Global Battle ‘

    “So you call people skeptical of AGW extremists. Telling attitude…”

    I call SOME people skeptical of AGW extremists. Specifically the ones who dismiss mainstream science because they uncritically accept complete nonsense spouted by the likes of Monckton. You will not find me ever claiming that all people skeptical of AGW are extremists.

    Haven’t you (or your pals hereabouts) ever used the word “alarmist” or some such to describe a subset of those with whom you disagree? So why don’t you drop the faux outrage and read the critique. Are some hard question’s raised about Spencer’s work, or not?

  72. Barry Bickmore says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:24 am

    You might have noticed that I began a discussion based on Spencer’s book. My claim is that there are no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the forcings that are necessary if rising CO2 concentrations are to cause dangerous increases in temperature. Can you produce such hypotheses?

    As regards your review of Spencer’s book, the very words that you use to introduce the reviews to this forum scream “Cheap Shots.”

  73. Syphax said:

    “A thorough (3 parts!) examination of Spencer’s work came out recently. Anyone with an open mind should give it a read; while it’s quite critical of Spencer, the criticisms focus on the science.”

    This forum is for adults to discuss science and its corruption. You can state theses. You can criticize positions. But do not assign homework. If you cannot state the position in your own words, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it then do not attempt to address it.

  74. Hugo M says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    “federico said March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Yes, you missed something. You missed the part that was deleted for the “Die Zeit”.

    Frederico, thank you very much for your effort. But let me clarify this: it wasn’t exactly me who left out anything, except, perhaps, a clear wording. It was Mr. Schmidt himself who, in his capacity as being a publisher of “Die Zeit”, either authorized or even directed the omission of these critical parts of his speech from an article in his own journal. If only someone could translate the passage from the “Zeit”, for everyone here to understand that by these two ommisions the meaning of the paragraph had changed course by 180°.”

    Hugo M.: I agree with you that the text was “adapted” either by Schmidt himself or he authorized the ommisions for “Die Zeit” (which seems to me the most probable of both options). I don’t see though a that the meaning changed 180° as he still calls to thoroughly scrutinize the IPCC, which implies that he doesn’t fully trust the work of the IPCC.

  75. Theo Goodwin says:
    March 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Syphax said:

    “A thorough (3 parts!) examination of Spencer’s work came out recently. Anyone with an open mind should give it a read; while it’s quite critical of Spencer, the criticisms focus on the science.”

    This forum is for adults to discuss science and its corruption. You can state theses. You can criticize positions. But do not assign homework. If you cannot state the position in your own words, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it then do not attempt to address it.

    Bickmore should ask Anthony (via the Tips and Notes tab) to have it posted here as a thread, and to get Spencer’s response. Then we can chew it over.

  76. Barry Bickmore says:
    March 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    I call SOME people skeptical of AGW extremists. Specifically the ones who dismiss mainstream science because they uncritically accept complete nonsense spouted by the likes of Monckton.

    Who’s “spouting” now?

    Many of us here have wished that Monckton would collaborate with someone who would get him to avoid overstatement, issue more qualifiers, be more nuanced, concede a few points, etc. But, if one eliminates those flaws, he’s more on target than those he criticizes. His critics, like Abraham, have behaved more discreditably, and spouted more nonsense.

  77. To me this seems to be the another leak in a political dam which is ripe for bursting. Nigel Lawson (a former Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Thatcher government) in the UK is saying something similar, but less sharply. This is a challenge to warmists since it is a breaking of a political taboo, if they fail to stem the leak other lesser political figures will start to widen the leak and the flow will go on growing.

    Remember AGW is a double edged sword for governments; yes they provide good excuses to raise taxes but they also spend billions on silly green projects like wind farms when electricity could otherwise be produced for a fraction of the price using shale gas. So a politician wanting to be elected could run on a populist ticket of “screw the cuts and cut the windfarms” ticket.

    With regards to the conspiracy theories we have only to look at the pathetic BBC documentaries by the president of the Royal Society (Nurse) to see how willingly duped some of the leaders of the national scientific institutions are.

  78. Theo says:

    “You might have noticed that I began a discussion based on Spencer’s book. My claim is that there are no physical hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the forcings that are necessary if rising CO2 concentrations are to cause dangerous increases in temperature. Can you produce such hypotheses?”

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “physical hypotheses,” Theo. Can you give me some examples?

    “As regards your review of Spencer’s book, the very words that you use to introduce the reviews to this forum scream ‘Cheap Shots.'”

    So what you’re saying is that you don’t want to read it.

  79. Theo said:

    “This forum is for adults to discuss science and its corruption. You can state theses. You can criticize positions. But do not assign homework. If you cannot state the position in your own words, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it then do not attempt to address it.”

    So Syphax says that people “ought to read” something, and for you that constitutes “assigning homework”? You seem to be finding all kinds of excuses not to read a critique of the book you like. Syphax is “assigning homework,” rather than summarizing in his own words so you don’t have to deal with the actual evidence presented. The way I introduced the critique “screams ‘Cheap Shots'” for some undisclosed reason. What’s next?

    If someone SUGGESTS that you read something, and you don’t feel you have the time or inclination, all you have to do is not respond, or say you have too much else to read, right now. Nobody expects everyone to read everything that is suggested to them. BTW, if you click the links to the critique, all three parts have a 1-paragraph summary at the beginning.

  80. Roger Knights says:

    “Many of us here have wished that Monckton would collaborate with someone who would get him to avoid overstatement, issue more qualifiers, be more nuanced, concede a few points, etc. But, if one eliminates those flaws, he’s more on target than those he criticizes. His critics, like Abraham, have behaved more discreditably, and spouted more nonsense.”

    I’m glad. Like I said, I don’t label all critics “extremists.”

    Regarding John Abraham’s critique, however, I have actually looked up a lot of the literature Monckton cites, as well, and it turned out Monckton was badly mischaracterizing in a large number of cases.

  81. Schmidt, married to his high school sweetheart for 66 years, made his mark as a local crisis manager in 1962 Hamburg floods. That reputation he burnished as chancellor with his handling of economic crises and his mastery of a 1970s leftwing urban guerrilla campaign of bombing and assassination — a test of fire for a still relatively young German democracy..

    “Schmidt is the star of German politics, its icon,“ Der Spiegel wrote. “No one is admired as much as he is.“

    Last year, Schmidt was picked in one poll as Germany’s “best former chancellor“ and another named him “wisest German“.

    “He’s Germany’s most popular politician,“ wrote TAZ daily.

  82. Barry Bickmore says:
    March 9, 2011 at 6:32 am
    Theo said:

    “This forum is for adults to discuss science and its corruption. You can state theses. You can criticize positions. But do not assign homework. If you cannot state the position in your own words, you do not understand it. If you do not understand it then do not attempt to address it.”

    “So Syphax says that people “ought to read” something, and for you that constitutes “assigning homework”? You seem to be finding all kinds of excuses not to read a critique of the book you like.”

    No, I have simply adopted the policy of calling all Warmista on the fact that none of them will actually address what are known to be the crucial and defining issues of the debate at this time. Issue number one is whether there are physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict the forcings, especially changes in cloud behavior, that can cause a dangerous rise in temperatures. The MAIN THESIS of Spencer’s book is that there are no such hypotheses. You claim to have reviewed the book and to have found it wanting. That could only mean that you have the needed physical hypotheses. So why do you not present them? Because you do not have them. And that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you did not understand the main thesis of the book that you reviewed. So why should I read the review? Can I be any clearer?

  83. Barry Bickmore writes:

    “If someone SUGGESTS that you read something, and you don’t feel you have the time or inclination, all you have to do is not respond, or say you have too much else to read, right now.”

    No, sir, you are not getting away with that trick. When you cite papers, you count that as a response. It is not. If you cannot state the matter in your own words then you do not understand it. I am not asking for a summary. I am asking you to state a thesis and defend.

  84. One reason why many serious but uninvolved scientists accept the warmist “consensus” is that in their own fields peer review is stringent and academic dishonesty unacceptable. They take this as a given, and thus accept at face value the assertions of “experts” in fields of which they are not personally knowledgeable. It is unthinkable to them that in “climate science” peer review could be corrupt and academic dishonesty rife.

  85. A G Foster says:
    March 8, 2011 at 9:24 am
    When the letter c is sandwiched between s and e, it is always silent and superfluous…

    I would guess from the rest of your post you might be suffering from scelerophobia.

  86. @ Barry Bickmore:

    I suggest that you approach one of the Lukewarmer sites in the sidebar, or Kevin Kloor’s site under the warmist heading, so you will have a fairly neutral environment in which to present and debate your rebuttal of Spencer’s theory. But you’ll have to boil it down so it focuses on the scientific critique, not the peripheral stuff.

    Here’s a WUWT thread on Monckton vs. Abraham:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/

    Here’s the first video in a series of videos titled “Monckton Refutes Abraham.” It’s much calmer and more effective than his initial written response in the link above. Unfortunately, it takes a lot longer to process (because it’s spoken, therefore more spread out):

    http://www.youtube.com/user/cfact#p/u/26/Z00L2uNAFw8

  87. Roger,

    I’ve seen all that, and looked up many of the references. In fact, I’ve found other instances where Monckton did even worse things. E.g., he fabricated false data to discredit the IPCC. See here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

    Monckton responded to this, and I countered here:

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/the-monckton-files-a-bold-monckton-prediction/

    (You’ll find Monckton’s response linked there, too.)

    This one isn’t some hyper-technical issue. He copied some data incorrectly, applied the wrong model to the incorrect data, and so got the wrong numbers, which he could have easily checked. When others (like me) pointed it out to him, he ducked and weaved, saying things like, “Some have said that the IPCC projection zone on our graphs should show exactly the values that the IPCC actually projects for the A2 scenario.” Really? What kind of buffoon would suggest that, when you are reporting the IPCC’s projections, you would report the values they actually projected? Insane as it sounds, that’s the sort of thing I insist on.

    Instead of just listening to Abraham, then listening to Monckton, and trying to decide who sounds more convincing, look up the references.

  88. Theo says,

    “No, sir, you are not getting away with that trick. When you cite papers, you count that as a response. It is not. If you cannot state the matter in your own words then you do not understand it. I am not asking for a summary. I am asking you to state a thesis and defend.”

    Umm… I’m the one who wrote the review, so obviously I can state it in my own words. Very well, I will copy and paste the summaries from all three parts of the review.

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

    Summary of Part 1: In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on. Instead, Spencer believes most climate change is caused by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover. He and a colleague published a peer-reviewed paper in which they used a simple climate model to show that these chaotic variations could cause patterns in satellite data that would lead climatologists to believe the climate is significantly more sensitive to external forcing than it really is. Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales. Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-2/

    Summary of Part 2: Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/

    Summary of Part 3: Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century. To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century. He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters. The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results. Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however. Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced.

  89. Theo says,

    “Issue number one is whether there are physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict the forcings, especially changes in cloud behavior, that can cause a dangerous rise in temperatures. The MAIN THESIS of Spencer’s book is that there are no such hypotheses.”

    If Spencer’s main thesis is that there are no such hypotheses, then what is there to argue about? He doesn’t have such a hypothesis, and neither does anyone else. The typical response of the scientific community in such a situation would be to let the crackpots worry about it.

    If you had thought a little harder about what Spencer was saying, however, you would have realized that his main thesis was that, whether or not there is a specific physical hypothesis that would explain WHY cloud cover chaotically fluctuates, he can virtually prove that 1) these fluctuations cause a STRONGLY negative feedback (at least in the short term), and 2) the PDO is one natural mode of climate variation that seems to be driving the fluctuations over multi-decadal time scales.

    In my review, I showed that neither claim is well supported. It all depends on Spencer’s willingness to plug wildly unrealistic values into a simple climate model, and employ nonsensical statistical techniques.

  90. Barry Bickmore,

    It must torture you that none of the wild-eyed runaway globaloney predictions have come true. The real “crackpots” are running realclimate.

  91. There is a little tiny problem with the qoute “especially since some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger).” by Helmut Schmidt:

    Schmidt never said this words.

    See Fake scandal again

Comments are closed.