Martin Hovland writes in with this statement. It seems that AGU Position Statement keeps costing them members.
He writes:
Although I have been a long-time member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), I hereby refuse to pay my membership fees. The main problem is the organization’s Position Statement on the purported “Human impacts on Climate” This statement includes the following statements: “During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it.
Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.”
As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.
Martin Hovland
Brave man.
Is he close to retirement?
Kurt in Swtzerland
I cannot bare illiteracy…..
REPLY: Neither can I, fixed – A
The Berlin wall came down brick by brick until the foundations collapsed and the east came in from the cold
> Is he close to retirement?
Seems he’s working for Statoil. Maybe he’s safe.
the reason is the statement? which part of it?
Hovland’s working for Statoil, isn’t he? Just for my clarification.
It would be nice if he could be more precise as to why he can no longer bear to support the AGU. Is it the conservative 2 degrees celsius? Is it the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions? Is it the word “disruptive”?
Or is it because he works for the oil industry? http://www.martinhovland.com/
REPLY: Or maybe it’s people like you, trying to find an evil motive in anyone who thinks differently?
Do we know just how many have resigned & under what circumstances? Do the AGU actually care anymore, or will they still not do so until membership numbers go critical? He is though, as already said, a brave man indeed.
That is such utter and provably false bull. Global temperatures were 2C higher than now for thousands of years earlier in the Holocene. We did not experience a loss of agricultural productivity, on the contrary, that is when agriculture was invented. We did not see a melting of the Greenland ice sheet and it DID continue for centuries. Tens of centuries. We also didn’t see any widespread loss of biodiversity, either.
The problem with this sort of hype is that it is so provably wrong. We know it is wrong with 100% certainty.
this will put the cat in the pigeon nest
You know… its not actually that hard to debunk this standard ‘oil industry shill’ talking point.
Fact: There is insufficient infrastructure for ‘renewables’ yet.
Opinion: “Cleaner” fossil fuels should be what rational eco-minded people push for, for now.
Fact: Oil is cleaner than coal.
Fact: Gas is cleaner than oil.
Fact: Oil companies are fast becoming gas companies.
Fact: Energy companies stand to make billions from climate change abatement (they just pass on costs to consumers, and are the people best placed for geosequestration).
Fact: Energy companies are publicly supportive of measures to combat climate change (see the points above for economic reasons).
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
Or is it because he works for the oil industry?
Yes, Garrett. Big Oil, as opposed to Big Government which of course only has our best interests at heart.
/sarc
Funny how Statoil were the good guys until they became the bad guys…IOW if anybod had issues with an AGU member’s links with the oil industry why would those issues only surface now?
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
Or is it because he works for the oil industry?
=====================
David, UK says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 am
Yes, Garrett. Big Oil, as opposed to Big Government which of course only has our best interests at heart. /sarc
====================
or BIG GREEN which seems to be pulling many levers on behalf of its rabid socialist masters.
Seems he’s working for Statoil. Maybe he’s safe.
Probably not all that safe, unless Statoil is abandoning its carbon sequestration program, the bio-fuels deal with Brazil, its wind turbine program, the Hydrogen fuel division and so on. I ask David, UK which is Statoil considered, Big Oil or Big Government since it is effectively a branch of the Norwegian government (over 2/3rds owner)?
“REPLY: Or maybe it’s people like you, trying to find an evil motive in anyone who thinks differently?”
I am presuming the above reply is from Mr. Watts.
I realize my question was an ad hominem attack, but without specifying a specific reason for leaving the AGU, he has left himself open to such accusations. We all have our biases, and Dr. Hovland will not be an exception. The question then is how much his oil industry bias has influenced his decision, or can he prove his decision to be purely based on science? If he can write up a personal critique of the AGU Position Statement, then we will all have a better understanding of his stance.
Kind regards.
I love the idea that you can automatically ignore what people say if they have oil industry links, given that both St Gore and the head of the IPCC both have oil industry links this means we can automatically ignore them . Although to be fair that is already the case for AGW skeptics, however for AGW proponents this seems to be different which is odd given the ones making the claim in thr first place. But then so is their ability to ignore oil industry funding to the IPCC and CRU , the type of funding which is always consider ‘evil’ if none AGW people get it, strange how that works .
A brave and intelligent man – thank heavens that there are such people otherwise we would all be lost, and at the mercy for the rest of human history of the likes of Al Gore.
The statement by the AGU shows a complete ignorance of recent past climates which, true to form, have not been at all stable.
For a scientific organization to be politically correct is complete lunacy.
Garrett: Or is it because he works for the oil industry?
REPLY: Or maybe it’s people like you, trying to find an evil motive in anyone who thinks differently?
Well said, Anthony — and more kindly than I would have rejoined.
because he works for the oil industry?
Given the huge amounts of cash the oil industry shoves at heaters that’s a bit weak !.
Here’s are my reasons:
– In 2003 I discovered that the scientific literature became biased (leading journals surch as ‘Nature’ and ‘New Scientist’) started targeting us, who doubted some of the science behind climate change and IPCC. I stopped taking some of the climate-related articles and comments in these journals seriously.
– I was, however, happy to continue with the American journals, ‘EOS’ and ‘Science’. However, after AGU came with its stance (policy declaration), in 2006, I became dubious, and have been more and more dissapointed with their uncritical “Global Warming” issues.
– When it came to ‘Science’, I was disgraced to see the article by Mann et al., nov. 2009 on the Medieval Climate Anomaly (previously called the Medieval Warm Period). A comment sent to the Editor of ‘Science’ was disgarded. I was asking Mann et al., to tell the readers more about how the “Pseudo proxies” are made, and especially their other derivatives mentioned in the article.
My retirement from the AGU is an official demonstration against scientific organizations that do not treat natural science as an open entity any more. I fear that this can seiously compromise Western Scientific work for decades to come. (Thus, it has nothing to do with my work in the oil industry, which I am acutally being pensioned from in June…).
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
“Or is it because he works for the oil industry? http://www.martinhovland.com/”
People like you really make me laugh! Same old “Oil Shrill” garbage! No matter that you are typing on a computer that used oil somewhere in its manufacture, No matter that how it is powered, What transport do you use? The list is endless.
We know there are people working in the climate field that try to be honest and many are supported with funds from oil companies. Try working in the oilfield, on a platform or barge etc and you will meet some of the most concerned people out there when it comes to protecting ecology but do not let that stand in the way of your religion!
The way you people think you are the only ones fit to be guardians of the planet makes me want to puke! Every sceptic I know wants a cleaner world for themselves and their children but not under the “Water Melon” system you lot propose with its bent “Science”!.
Rant ends!
I wonder who make more money out of the use of fossil fuels. – Is it, say the “Oil Companies” who, or which, supply – and pay for all the necessary equipment, manpower and research right from the first survey and geological dynamiting to find the oil, – or could it be the various governments around the world who only supply a few “Taxation experts” to demand and collect taxes from, not just the “Oil Companies” but also from all the people and industries connected?
Even companies making bicycles, shoes and beer-bottles cannot exist today if it was not for the burning of fossil fuels. So, come on you AGW fanatics —. Get real – why do you think it is possible for you to send your comments to WUWT if it was not for “Oil Companies” and other fossil fuel companies making it possible to generate enough electricity for all of us.
crosspatch says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:05 am
The problem with this sort of hype is that it is so provably wrong. We know it is wrong with 100% certainty.
Sadly, most pro-CAGWers still don’t want to admit that the hockey sticks are all broken. They usually point at e.g. Gavin Schmidt’s “Hey ya (mal)” post on Real Climate, where he tries to pull one hockey stick out of his hat after the other. The problem with this and other attempts at showing a “multitude of hockey sticks” is that the sticks are all either based on the same wrong data and methods (e.g. upside down Tiljander) or they start in the middle of the little ice age.
Since its becoming so hard to figure out who’s sleeping with who, I’d like to propose a new bit of jargon, please. Since the Garretts and the Obs like Big Oil (and I’m sure the “military-industrial complex”) and us deniers (/sarc) like Big Green, etc., and since we know they’re all inter-related anyway, I propose the following: Green-Industrial-Military-Energy Complex, or GIME, for short. GIME, it should be self-evident, is pronounced “gimmee”, which, for the ESLs is colloquial English for “give-me”…
I fail to understand the knee-jerk reaction to those who work in industry when it comes to issues like this.
It is my understanding that those individuals’ work is subject to the hardest test to pass, it works in real life, and failure can result in lawsuits, fines, jail time etc. Those who work in industry are paid to produce results which are testable, verifiable, which bring profit (that evil word) to the corporation for whom they work.
Those working in academia are largely insulated from this, thus have much less need for rigor in their analyses and face no penalty other than the criticism of others who may disagree with them with no fear of further penalty. Their need for rigor, for sound basis in fact, for verifiability of their results or even for proposing theories which are falsifiable is, for the most part, nonexistent.
Personally, in most cases, i would take the word of a practicing engineer over that of a pure academic any day.
Could it just maybe, even remotely be, that his mind is working clearly? That his thought process(es) are not befuddled and he doesn’t exist in a near permanent personal state of stress, irritability, complete with feelings of guilt and low level depression. That he see through the torrent of crap and then speak out against many of his long-time peers reads volumes- he’s. got. self. confidence; he can call “BS” and has the mental where-with-all and intellect to defend that position.
So- what widely available ‘substance’ that a person/group/population or even entire civilisation have access to brings any or all of those traits I’ve just described?
What would happen if the vast majority of any given population were affected? Would a succession of ill thought out opinions within the populations, resultant ‘bad decisions’ by their elected leaders and consequent ‘not good actions’ have any significant effect on the long term viability and survival of that population?
(Ignore me, I’m just thinking out loud really)
The AGU sez (paraphased): The climate IS warming and YOU’RE TO BLAME! So you MUST give up all fossil fuels, stop eating, stop polluting, just STOP, STOP, STOP! (errr…but before you do all that stuff, please send in your annual dues – thank$).
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
It would be nice if he could be more precise as to why he can no longer bear to support the AGU. Is it the conservative 2 degrees celsius? Is it the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions? Is it the word “disruptive”?
Or is it because he works for the oil industry? http://www.martinhovland.com/
Oh come on, Garrett. You can do better than question a man’s employment, surely? Where else is someone in the Geophysical union going to be working? In a department store? On a fishing boat? Of course he works in an extractive industry. geophysical – stuff to do with the earth.
Of course, by your same reasoning, anyone who works in (a) government (b) anything even remotely to do with renewables (c) anything remotely to do with green activism is similarly tainted with bias and to be ignored, right? I mean, we can only listen to people who have absolutely no skin in the game, right?
Kaboom says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm
I cannot bare illiteracy…..
Surely you mean you cannot bear illiteracy?
Funny. Very.
Just so we can calibrate the level of sacrifice being made here, annual membership at AGU is $20, and you get Eos and Physics Today all year.
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
….
At least he posted an interesting link. Better than the other anonymous cowards. Ok, Jubal Harshaw is a fictional non-coward. How about anonymous coward (though O.B. is a trademark) and cowardly identity thief?
reply to brc’s comment:
“Of course, by your same reasoning, anyone who works in (a) government (b) anything even remotely to do with renewables (c) anything remotely to do with green activism is similarly tainted with bias and to be ignored, right? I mean, we can only listen to people who have absolutely no skin in the game, right?”
You mean to tell me that if somebody from Greenpeace or WWF left a similar society that you wouldn’t think it was a bigger deal? Of course it’s important who they work for, though I do realize that ad hominem arguments are inherently weak. If a green activist resigned from an oil industry board most people would shrug their shoulders and say “so what, where’s the surprise”. Similarly, if a geologist whose career is focused on aiding an oil company leaves an organisation that openly criticizes fossil fuel burning, I’m not too surprised. He may have scientific and ethical reasons for doing so, and I for one would love to see them. I prefer debating science.
“Where else is someone in the Geophysical union going to be working?”
Well, flicking through some of the most recent articles on one of the AGU’s journals, Geophysical Research Letters, most of the authors are university researchers from every corner of the planet. Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
I beat him to it by a number of years. My statement is simple: I think it is the purpose of the AGU, AMS, and any number of other societies to further science and not to make policy statements. I do not care what the statement is. It is not in keeping with the concept of a free and open discussion of science. A policy statement of “AGW is not supported by the facts.” would be just as bad.
JPY says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:10 am
“Just so we can calibrate the level of sacrifice being made here, annual membership at AGU is $20, and you get Eos and Physics Today all year.”
Actually, that IS a bargain. Most engineering societies are well over $100 / year.
JPY 5:10am
Thank you for that insight JPY- you must be exhausted.
Energy companies are so titled because they provide energy. They are less concerned about the form of that energy then the profitability of providing it. If we go to all wind energy by government fiat, Exxon will probably become the largest wind energy company.
If you demonize all providers of energy, try living north of 40 degrees north latitude in the U.S. without someone providing your heating energy.
I have yet to hear of anyone directly proposing abandoning our northern cities although this would substantially reduce our carbon footprint.
Did Al Gore know something when he bought his palace in southern Cal?
Garrett says…. “Or is it because he works for the oil industry?”
From http://www.ieses.fsu.edu/Symposia/Symposium-on-Offshore-Energy-Part-I-Oil-and-Gas/Biography-Martin-Hovland-Ph.D:
“Dr. Martin Hovland is an Adjunct Professor for the Centre of Geobiology at the University of Bergen as well as a marine geological specialist and project manager for StatoilHydro. He is a lecturer at the University of Tromsø, teaching geohazards. Dr. Hovland served in the Norwegian Air Force as a meteorologist and taught mathematics and geography in Zambia, Africa. He was an Invited Scientist on Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 46, a member of ODP Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel, is currently a member of the Environmental Protection and Safety Panel for Texas A&M University, and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London.
Since 1980, Dr. Hovland has published over one hundred peer reviewed articles and four books. His research includes deep-water coral reefs, drilling of marine gas hydrates, the effect of gas through the seafloor and mapping shallow gas through the seafloor.”
My guess is that Dr. Hovland’s opinion is much more influenced by his strong science background, his geology training, and a stiff spine. Bravo Dr. Hovland!
Dr. Hovland:
Thank you very much for taking the time to come by and respond.
I find it puzzling (ironic? hypocritical?) that people think that oil money corrupts but that government money does not.
Hydrocarbon energy companies are the demons responsible for AGW according to climate change alarmists and the dubious science they propagate. Their minions are evil.
I see a different set of demons. Like the chicken or the egg, I’m not sure who came first, the Green radicals or governments that fund scientists who promote global warmism with false research. The question is who corrupted whom first?
I am confident that my demons are worse those of the climate alarmists. In fact, this is incontrovertible.
max says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:00 am
“I ask David, UK which is Statoil considered, Big Oil or Big Government since it is effectively a branch of the Norwegian government (over 2/3rds owner)?”
Why, Big Oil government of course. But as that government also promotes electric cars, carbon sequestration and ridiculously expensive and inefficient osmosis power plants, make that a Big Green Oil Government.
He works for Statoil? Pity, the real money in Global Warming comes from State governments.
You’d think that geologists would be the first to appreciate that “natural variation” covers far more hot/cold, wet/dry extremes than anything we’ve experienced in the last 100/500/1000 years. These are mere blinks of the eye.
Yet, the Geological Society of America adopted an inane IPCC-compliant position statement on “climate change” in 2006. My efforts to reinforce the distinct perspective of geologic time were ignored, so I resigned the society after 25+ years membership.
GSA revised the statement in 2010, when ample evidence was available that much of the IPCC analysis was crap – – and it only got more strident. The Greens had infiltrated and taken over.
Buh-bye
Garrett says:
“It would be nice if he could be more precise as to why he can no longer bear to support the AGU. Is it the conservative 2 degrees celsius? Is it the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions? Is it the word “disruptive”?”
Precise?? The reason is obvious: none of the AGU’s statements are factual. They are deliberate misrepresentations of what geologists know. The planet has been much warmer in the geologic past, with no “climate disruption”. And if the U.S. reduced CO2 emissions by 50%, you can be certain that China, India, Russia, and a hundred smaller countries would more than make up the difference. Explain why hobbling our economy for no benefit whatever makes any sense.
The AGU, like the APS and most other professional organizations, have given up being honest professionals, and have become nothing but CAGW propagandists, disseminating lies written by a small clique who have insinuated themselves into official positions. The membership, as we can see, knows what is going on but has zero say in it. The only thing they can do is resign in disgust.
The AGU could send out a simple membership questionnaire asking: should the AGU issue such policy positions? But they will never do that, because the few controlling the message want to continue spreading their lies. They have an agenda, and the truth isn’t part of their false narrative.
mark wagner says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:12 am
I find it puzzling (ironic? hypocritical?) that people think that oil money corrupts but that government money does not.
Quite ! – but of course government money is public money, and the elected government is doing the bidding of the people, as are it’s agents – so that’s all right then, yes? /sarc…..
(But of course, there’s always the senior civil servants that actually hold/pull the strings – the beauracrates, anal retentives, the lot of them, promoting and placing their ‘ilk’ into every available high office (or rather orifice?) to ensure control!)
Let’s see, the people in the best position to look at the geological record to look at past climates would be the geologists. There really are only two main places for a geologist to gain employment: Academia, and the resource exploration and extraction industries (Oil, Gas, Metals, Coal, etc.). There are only just so many academic positions, so the majority of geologists will be found in the other pursuits. The exploration geologist probably gets 10 times the field data collection and analysis time over the academic. I would tend to trust the one getting his hands dirty to the one in the office in the ivory tower. Just my two cents on this whole “but he works for big energy” canard.
It’s funny, lots of back and forth here and it seems just one other commenter noticed or at least mentioned Dr. Hovland’s response. I too thank Dr. Hovland for taking time to comment here, well done.
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:56 am
“Where else is someone in the Geophysical union going to be working?”
Well, flicking through some of the most recent articles on one of the AGU’s journals, Geophysical Research Letters, most of the authors are university researchers from every corner of the planet. Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
———————————————————————————————————
Not sure where you’re from Garret but in my neck of the woods if you are employed at a University as research faculty your position is pretty much only as secure as the amount of grant funding you can obtain each year. Yes, the University technically pays your salary but your grants are what pay for your lab and staff…without that money your are not doing any research…
As we have seen over and over in the “climate change” arena, if you are not towing the party line you are not getting the grants, from the government or the organizations. Therefore, you are not going to be employed for very long….
Obviously, those worried about global warming are all those rich fat cat liberals with beach front properties insured, in the US, by the federal government insurance plans.
I’m betting Garrett drives an automobile that uses liquid fuel derived from (Gasp!) petroleum, that his computer uses electricity derived primarily from (Oh, the Horrors!) coal or natural gas, and that the seat he’s sitting on is made from plastics, wood and metal derived from (No Way!) drilling, mining, farming, and manufacturing–all dependent on petroleum for production! I’m also betting the building he’s sitting in comes from the same sources–even if he were sitting in an OWS tent somewhere clicking away.
Get the picture, Garrett? (You don’t let the necessities or luxuries of life influence your opinion on anything, do you?)
Give Garrett a break. He’s only pointing out what I read here sometimes with posters questioning the motives of some AGW believers because of who pays thier bills. Call a spade a spade everytime… not just when it suits you. Be consistent, that’s all. Most here already know that AGW is a scam… but that should not stop us from questioning everyone… including Dr. Hovland as to why its taken hinm so long to come around. I know where I’ve stood all along, even when being a skeptic brought criticisms from my co-workers. Dr. Hovland… thanks for your decision, but what took you so long?
Garrett says: (about Martin Hovland)
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
It would be nice if he could be more precise as to why he can no longer bear to support the AGU. (…)
Or is it because he works for the oil industry?
Martin Hovland says: (about his reasons)
February 9, 2012 at 2:59 am
Garrett says: (to brc, about Martin Hovland)
February 9, 2012 at 5:56 am
*****
Well, Garrett, your own words and actions:
You’ve attacked a man’s integrity (in an ignorant non sequitur, in my opinion) and in the same post requested more information about his reasons for his decision.
2 hours later Martin Hovland responded and provided this information to you—politely, despite your rudeness—and even addressed your non sequitur ad hominem.
3 more hours later you took time to defend your position in a reply to brc but you ignored Martin Hovland’s explanation.
I’ve met people like you before. Do you know what we call them?
mark wagner says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:12 am
I find it puzzling (ironic? hypocritical?) that people think that oil money corrupts but that government money does not.
====================================
onlyme says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:48 am
…Personally, in most cases, i would take the word of a practicing engineer over that of a pure academic any day.
====================================
As a political science major I agree with the first quote and as a construction worker I overwhelmingly agree with the second – I’ll take real world experience over imagined academic knowledge any day (and have multiple stories to support why, but most are hard to tell w/o expletives though, hehe)
@Garret,
Sorry to tell you this, but Universities are for profit. They make a profit off of skimming grants and tuition; they make investments like any business and have all sorts of business accounts, and a leadership structure the same as any corporation just with different names. A researcher’s position is only “secure” if they get tenure (not even then these days), other than that they are used by the university for their grant money, and if that dries up they have to leave after a certain number of years (usually it’s 5 once you start working at a university you must reach tenure or move somewhere else, but it’s a rough estimate and all universities do their own thing; but there’s job evaluations just like any corporation). Don’t be fooled, a university functions like any business, except it also gets government funding to help expand its coffers. But that’s how the system works, and why it works–research and teaching are expensive endeavors! If you can’t make profit, you go broke fast; and the government is notoriously unreliable.
People who work for universities are just as potentially biased as any working for any company.
Also, I would like to refer you to the fact that plastics are petroleum products. Oil is required for the modern civilization, and not simply for burning. We would have none of our modern world without the plastics from oil. The ignorance of people, on that subject, who denounce oil is astounding.
Working in the oil industry as opposed to the Marxist political activist who seem to be using every formerly scientific society as a tool to enslave mankind through fear, envy, and class warfare? That AGU position statement is loaded with Marxist jargon and is written from a Marxist perspective. Using Marxist jargon and looking at things from a Marxist perspective makes one a Marxist. Plain and simple. And that the trolls are using Marxist style denigration of Martin Hovland, and started their attack on him with amazing rapidity really proves that this is not about science but the destruction of capitalism.
Just look at the idiocy that Garrett is spouting. Equating working for Greenpeace with working in the oil industry? Pure Marxist non-sense!
JPY says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:10 am
“Just so we can calibrate the level of sacrifice being made here, annual membership at AGU is $20, and you get Eos and Physics Today all year.”
I have to disagree. Publicly announcing ones skepticism can cost a great deal more than you might imagine. Stick that in your calibration.
Ask yourself the hard question (if you have the courage); why go to such great lengths to smear the man while ignoring what he has written?
I dropped my AGU membership over 10 years ago because of all the global warming articles in EOS. I found their one-sidedness on the issue to be quite irritating.
Garrett:
Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
You might want to give a good read through Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics, and you might get an idea of exactly how much playing politics and “toeing the line” can mean in academia – even in the hard sciences.
Wellington, in your response to Garret.
I have met people like you before, do you know what we call them?
Where i come from we call them,
S&!@ for brains
That is just me but i agree with your question to him as i went thru all comments that he has not taken the time to address the good Doctors reply, That Garret ask for.
… I look forward to seeing the comments Mr. Hovland submitted to the IPCC as an expert reviewer on the up-coming assessment report 5 ; )
3 cheers (Skål!) to Martin for his resignation (and no, it’s not about the actual dues, you lightweights). But yes, he deserves to be applauded for his courteous response to an underhanded stab. To Garrett, who requested the clarification: you owe Martin a thank you AND an apology.
For those nitpicking on misspelling [ref: bear / bare]: try penning your next comments in perfect Nynorsk for a change. Get a life already.
For more relevance, here’s a link to a report written by Andrew Montford (author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion”) on a similar slow corruption of one of the oldest scientific societies on the planet from the pursuit of scientific truths to advocacy / activism and all which that entails:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf
Perhaps we’ll get more brave scientists like Martin Hovland and Ivar Giaever (also a Norwegian, by the way) to stand up for science in the face of political correctness. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are both angry at their own Nobel Peace Prize Committee for showering praise on the IPCC and Al Gore (that being a blatant political maneuver if there ever was one).
I, for one, would welcome such an honest step. Perhaps we’ll reach a “tipping point” on the subject. It’d be a positive step for science associations to decouple themselves from politics!
Kurt in Switzerland
Martin Hovland says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:59 am
“Here’s are my reasons:
…… My retirement from the AGU is an official demonstration against scientific organizations that do not treat natural science as an open entity any more. I fear that this can seriously compromise Western Scientific work for decades to come. ”
You express the sentiments of many of us, Mr. Hovland!
Thank You, Sir, for your direct, open, and courageous stand!
When any scientist or engineer is accused by AGWers of being employed by big oil, industry or whatever, I invariably think and increasingly say; then this guy is producing or helping to produce something useful and beneficial to human beings. He/she is WORKING for a living, not spongeing grants off the taxpayer!
I am so tired of people who have little intellectual ability and cannot respond with reasoned argument – mostly AGW supporters by the way.
When Monckton toured Australia and not one of the prophets of doom even had the courage to stand by their professed convictions and argue their case – when it was obvious Monckton demolished his opponent at the press club and staggering from that body blow – did the AGW proponents come out and present a convincing case ?
NO – they resorted to cheap (and incorrect) slander about his status as a Lord based – as is usual for their creed – on faulty and easily disproved evidence that he was NOT a lord after all.
Really, who really cared anyway – this cheap shot to discredit came from a mindset that has no intellectual fortitude.
As it turned out Monckton was easily able to discredit them further by disproving their lies again.
They ended up with egg on their face again – but wasn’t it brave of all our “expert” climatologists to run and hide when challenged ?
Martin @ 21
The scientific community has been approaching an answer you don’t agree with, you decided to abandon the community. Not really a good reason to “retire” from AGU.
Put it another way. There is an entire community dedicated to not using vaccines based on one paper that linked the use of vaccines to autism. Problem is, every, and I mean EVERY, paper ever published in the field has NEVER indicated a link. And in the end this paper was officially recinded and the author was showed to have manipulated data. And quite literally, many thousands of children’s lives have been put at risk because of this “doctor”.
In the United States, the medical professionals have to fight with some parents based on this one flawed paper. And what does the anti-vaccine community think? They deserve equal standing with regards to the scientific consensus. Sorry, but NO. They don’t. It is NOT an equal arguement. There is a wonderful show on NPR (the Diane Rehm Show) that had Seth Mnookin on . One caller mentioned that it should be more of a two-sided conversation. Here is the response:
“REHM (11:47:47)
And you talked about having a two-sided conversation, Nelson. That’s precisely what I did not wish to have since Dr. Wakefield’s study has been so severely discredited. Seth.
MNOOKIN (11:48:06)
Diane, I think that’s such a good point and I think that that sort of instinct to have “both sides” really does damage, not just in this debate. A parallel that I draw is the Birther Movement. The fact that some people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States doesn’t make that a valid debate. But again and again, you saw news organizations presenting it as, well, let’s have this person who believes that he was and points to his birth certificate and all of the factual evidence and this person who just feels like he wasn’t. And I think that’s horribly irresponsible of the press.”
It’s time to start being responsible scientists. Just because you don’t agree with the result, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, especially given the enormous amount of supporting evidence from crop migration, timing, species migration, ice and glacier loss, ocean acidification, etc, you can’t just claim you don’t agree. Back it up with some evidence and stop being irresponsible.
sensor operator says:
It’s time to start being responsible scientists. Just because you don’t agree with the result, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, especially given the enormous amount of supporting evidence from crop migration, timing, species migration, ice and glacier loss, ocean acidification, etc, you can’t just claim you don’t agree. Back it up with some evidence and stop being irresponsible.
Let me introduce you to the scientific method: there is no testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of any of those things. None. And it is irresponsible to imply it. The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified, meaning everything you cite is no different from natural variability. So arguing that it is not natural variability borders on lunacy. It’s simply the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy: “Since I can’t think of anything except CO2 that causes these things, then it must be CO2. Sheer ignorance.
Furthermore, the onus is not on skeptics to prove anything. The onus is on the irresponsible alarmist crowd to produce evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of any of your wild-eyed examples. So far, they have failed.
From your cut ‘n’ paste example, what you really want to do is silence all contrary scientific opinions. You certainly have failed to make a case that CO2 is harmful, so Brownshirt tactics are all you’re left with. It’s clear that you obviously want to stifle the debate that your crowd is losing.
All of the alarmist predictions regarding CO2 have failed. Every one of them. In any other branch of the hard sciences, such an incompetent record of failure would result in the proponents of their conjecture to be laughed off campus, and their funding would be cut to zero. Explain why, despite being wrong time after time after time, you believe those scaremongers have any credibility or legitimacy left?
Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
No. They bring in an enormous amount of money, especially from the Government. This money is hugely important to the universities for which they work. Their ability to bring in the lucre is absolutely reflected in their salaries and other “perks”.
Their hands are by no means clean.
C’mon, a ham sandwich with a keyboard could be an IPCC reviewer. Use the Google and pay due respect
————————-
Martin Hovland, Ph.D. is an Adjunct Professor for the Centre of Geobiology at the University of Bergen as well as a marine geological specialist and project manager for StatoilHydro.
————————-
Sensor operator says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
It’s time to start being responsible scientists. Just because you don’t agree with the result, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, especially given the enormous amount of supporting evidence from crop migration, timing, species migration, ice and glacier loss, ocean acidification, etc, you can’t just claim you don’t agree. Back it up with some evidence and stop being irresponsible.
In the 201 years since Cornelius Vanderbilt first earned his money by ferrying passengers across the ice-filled Hudson River flowing between Staten Island and Manhattan, who is denying that temperatures have risen slightly? Further, will you deny that higher CO2 levels and (that 1/2 of one degree) temperature increase since 1950 have increased ALL plant growth – for food, fuel, fodder, forage, and feeding ALL life on this planet – by 12 to 27 percent? Will you deny that malaria deaths have declined in all areas serviced by a free and competitive economy? Name the ten consumers actually, realistically threatened or harmed by the world’s use of fossil energy, and I’ll begin naming the 4 billion using that energy to save lives, increase clean water, reprocess sewage into clean water, heat their homes, produce food, ship food, fuel, and people, irrigate crops and improve their health and well-being.
Over the past 201 years, there has been no consistent relationship between rising, steady, and falling CO2 levels and rising, falling, and steady temperatures. And, in fact, for only 25 of those 201 years have both CO2 and temperatures risen at the same time.
Eli Rabett says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Are you suggesting that the IPCC treats a marine geologist as it does a ham sandwich? That could explain a lot of things.
Sensor operator says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
If by “scientific community” you mean the 40 or so scientists in “The Team” that incestuously support “The Cause”, you might want to re-examine your stance on the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity (in terms of wasted wealth, human life, and collateral damage to other disciplines).
The only thing this “scientific community” is approaching, Sensor, is a cliff-like deflation in their reputations and, without doubt, their funding when the hue and cry across the world rises to a crescendo no politician can ignore.
UPDATE: Their reputations have already been tossed over the cliff; the only thing left is the sudden stop at the bottom, although we can hear them screaming.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
How can this not be significant? Martin Hovland “can no longer bear to support the AGU” because he knows the AGW science is not valid and does not support the global carbon control impostions on the world’s countries.
Sensor operator says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
I also see you omitted TEMPERATURE from you list, Sensor. But based on how Smokey deftly refuted any argument that CO2 enhances global temperature, you were correctly irresponsible in doing so.
It appears to me that weaning oneself off the Cool-Aid involves a fair bit of self mental immolation. Perhaps not all at once. Reality can be rather shocking, after all. For some, best taken in bite-sized chunks. If the first chunk be propaganda recognition not exactly a bad place to start.
Let’s respect his decision, regardless what he said in the statement
“As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.
Martin Hovland”
Just what is he saying here? The reason the AGU say what they do is because they follow the IPCC reports.
So what has he been actively communicating in his career in climate science?
Garrett said “We all have our biases, and Dr. Hovland will not be an exception”
Firstly, you do not know the guy so have no right to say that.
Secondly, some people have principles to which they adhere.
Autism from the triple vaccine is the worst argument I have ever seen for one sided consensus science. The paper mentioned was ably supported by many other doctors and representatives of NGOs such as save the children. It took a number of brave researchers to gradually break down the work and force the GMC to review the work one more time.
This was a prime example of how consensus anti-science destroys.
Garrett:
Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
Naive and ill informed.
The triple vaccine issue is similar to the Dr. Marshal problem. This is the Dr that proved beyond reasonble doubt that most stomach ulcers wer caused by bacteria. He was ridiculed for years (~~ 10 I think) by the ‘consensus’ until eventually and, out of sheer frustration, fed himself the bacteria. The paper that followed was finally accepted by the concensus and , thanks to Marshal, many people have been saved the danger of operations and possible death. That includes me.
I despise people like Garret, Rabett who cannot take their minds from hell to the open air. Who do not have the ability to discuss the science with an open mind and who can only throw ad homs like confetie in order to satify their egos. It’s people such as you that cause so many to suffer unnecessarily.
Too right.
Washington state, where I live, has one of the highest state gasoline taxes in the US (In the top 10 as of July 2011). Yet, because we have several refineries in the state, outgoing Gov Gregoire has proposed an additional of $1.50 per barrel of oil refined in our state. It’s not enough that she taxes the hell out of her own constituents, but wants to taxes those in other states who may use gas refined in WA. Talk about cojones.
Well, since I started the fire, it would only be proper if I responded to comments from folks as well.
Smokey @ 68:
For all of the models and evidence that has been provided by various persons, including Ben Santer. In fact he did an excellent job of discussing this during a Congressional Hearing. While I am sure most people at this website may not like his channel, the best place I can find the video is at greenman3610 on youtube. To be fair and keep on target, skip to 1:20 in the video to get past greenman’s opinion and straight to the discussion at the hearing.
Yes, they use models. Guess what? They also use models with the UAH satellite data to figure out temperatures because remote sensing does not directly measure the item. They are our best understanding of the dynamics of the world around us. And so far, besides people complaining about using models, not one has provided a better option.
The best we can do is compare the current environmental conditions to those that existed in the past. At this point, the rate of increase in CO2 which we currently observe best matches events that caused massive extinctions. Granted, we are looking at different mechanisms so we can’t do an apples to apples comparison. But, it does seem reasonable to claim that the human species has been able to thrive due to a relative calm climate, especially over the past 5,000+ years.
And no, I am not against someone providing an alternate explanation that can be backed up with evidence. SHOW ME DATA! Yes, there is onus on skeptics to prove things. Right now, most skeptics will make a claim about a singluar event or place, e.g. Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC. I think more than enough people have acknowledge the 2035 metling is wrong. Good. Let’s drop it. Stop bringing it up. Because skeptics will just bring up 10 other things that scientists must do due diligence to point out errors and/or misconceptions in the skpetics arguement.
Heck, look what the physics community has done in the last few months. A number of measurements were made at CERN suggesting particles traveling faster than the speed of light. The folks invovled were so concerned/confused they posted an aritcle, prior to peer review, for people to look at. Why? They wanted others to provide feedback to try and figure out what they could have done wrong. They did hold a news conference proclaiming Einstein was wrong. They reached out to the scientific community to gather more information. THAT is scientific method.
Trust me, with two little kids, I would love to be able to tell them everything is going to be fine. And leave out attacks on people, whether it is Gore, Mann, or anyone else. Show me data.
Example: Monckton has claimed (not sure if he still does) that Arctic ice has recovered by showing data from 2007-2009. Not only is this irresponsible, it is unethical. He just happened to leave out the prior 30 years show a long term decline. And now, when we include the most recent data, we are back on the decline. Take a look.
And what alarmist predictions have failed? So far some of the earliest and simpliest models, with best estimates of how the human population would behave wrt CO2 releases, have NOT failed. Unless we are still talking about the Himalayas. Don’t pull a Monckton. Provide evidence.
Why am I concerned about AGW? Because I have analyzed the data. I have run global coupled ocean-atmosphere models. I have worked on paleoclimatology and remote sensing. I know what history/science tells us. This may be one of the first times in human history when science has a responsibility to step up and warn society about an impending danger. Most historical data I know of suggests that some other forcing started the warming (planetary/orbital dynamics), CO2 lagged a bit but they became a positive feedback. This is the first time where it looks like CO2 is not a feedback, but is actually the primary forcing. Yes, that is a concern. We don’t know who the Earth system will respond since we don’t have a good historical analogy. The best we can do is look at periods of similar conditions/rates of change. And the one thing we can say is not may species survived those events.
Ah, so the IPCC can be safely ignored, since they have no regard for expert reviewers.
Smokey: “It’s simply the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy: ”
I call it the “It’s raining harder than it was 5 minutes ago, we’re all gonna drown!” fallacy.
Onto the next response:
RACookPE1978 @ 71:
Remember, correlation does not imply causality.
Yes, I will deny that higher levels of CO2 since 1950 have increased all plant growth. I will admit that using more and more fertilizers and plant many mode seeds has increased plant growth, especially agricultural crops. CO2 alone will not make plants grow larger. They need enhancement from other nutrients as well.
Try here. Better right, check out this document on page 3 that explcitly states using por soils and judicious use of fertilizers sa real ways to increase world food production.
As for the barage on use of fossil fuel, you should look at the micro-cultures of people and tribes in Africa. It would be impractical, if not impossible, to try and set up a grid capable of reaching all of these people, but they still require access to other regions. And what has been a major source in sovling some problems? Solar panels. They provide sufficient energy for charging small devices, e.g. cell phones, that make is possible for folks to maintain contact with the rest of the world. And in a crazy twist of fate, people (mainly women) are starting small businesses in villages to provide this service to neighbors using small business loans available to them. The neighbors don’t have to travel as far to get their devices charged and it actually costs less. So we have a win for the people, the environment, and free markets!
And I mostly agree. Over the past 201 years, the relationship between CO2 and temperature has not always been consistent… until the last 50 years. Then the relationship is very strong. On this website you can find links to numerous other website including ones from NOAA, AGU, AMS, and others that all come to the same conclusion.
And we continue:
RockyRoad @ 73:
I know potholer54 recently had some information posted here based on information he pointed out and backed up with evidence on his youtube channel. The reason this was amusing is that potholer54 actually used things Monckton himself said and they went to the sources to prove they were being misquoted (at a minimum).
If you want to get into ad-hominem attacks, how about the Wegman report, Ben santer pointing out Pat Michaels hypocrisy during a Congressional hearing, or even climategate. To this point, there has not been a single “criticism” that has not been reviewed and shown to support the majority of work in climate science.
Recently, Burt Rutan and a number of folks posted an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. While we could spend hours discussing the misrepresentations the WSJ has consistently shown wrt climate change, the more incredible fact is that a number of other items were psoted in other journals, incuding Forbes and finally back in the WSJ. One of the best, in which someone actually shows the misinformation presented in original opinion piece is from Louis Derry at Cornell.
These opinion pieces keep using the same complaints that have been discredited time and time again. It sure seems teh original 16 have the real reputation problem.
And finally (for now):
RockyRoad @ 75:
Really? I left out temperature? As if the list of other items is not enough (and I did use etc to imply other things like temperature). Therefore, I officially add temperature to the list.
As for Smokey refuting arguements, such as a rise in CO2 does did not cause artic sea ice loss (and others arguemnts but I am only writing the one), he did no such thing. His criteria to get his result would require a second Earth which we could use like a laboratory. Well, we don’t have a second Earth, just the one were stuck on. And we do the best we can. Remember, for most sciences like geology, oceanography, meteorology (and others), we are trying to look at the Earth like a beaker, but it is a very dirty beaker. We do the best we can given the conditions.
As for “… can’t think of anything except CO2 that causes these things, then it must be CO2. Sheer ignorance.”
NO! Shee ignroance is NOT providing another plausible casue. Other things have been studied. Other possibilities have been considered, but no matter how much we try, all arrows point back to CO2. Other items weren’t ignored, they never had any empirical evidence to support them, e.g. cosmic rays and clouds, a requirement made by Smokey! Can’t have it both ways.
So according to Smokey, scientists have to prove things to 100% (which never happens in science), the opposite side does not have to do any work, just complain when they don’t like the answer, let alone provide reasonable alternative with empirical evidence to back them up. Climate science should not be treated like Sisyphus with a never ending uphill battle.
And the only plot included says “they have failed”. Well, only if you manipulate the data to get your result. The plot he links to indidcates data came from here. Well why don’t you try it! Select mean temperaute, in July in 2011 and, say, 1965 or 1976. You will see that while there may be pockets of the country that show some below normal temps in 2011, almost 75% of CONUS is above normal. And in the earlier years, there is more of the country below average with some pockets above. And it is similar in other months like January. The plot he links to is desgined to confuse people that don’t understand science and has no explanation. BE RESPONSIBLE!
Why do people buy life insurance? Are they really that convinced they are going to die? And soon? It would make more sense to save the money early in one’s life and only buy the insurance much later in life, but that’s not what people do. Seems to go against logic and science to do something “just in case.” By the same arguement, shouldn’t we address AGW… just in case. Oh, and if you study the Earth, it is providing a slew of information that indicates the impacts are occuring and they are due to AGW.
So, we do know that CO2 has increased steadily for years. We do know from isotopic analysis that the source of the additional CO2 is from human use of fossil fuels. We do know that solar activity has not been outside of typical conditions to explain document global warming. We have looked at other natural effects (El Nino, volcanoes, and others) and when we remove the natural variations, we still see a long term increase in temperature.
So, if we connect the dots, CO2 is causing the warming, warmer temperatures is the primary culprit of melting ice in the Arctic, therefore it is reasonable to assume the increase in CO2 is causing the ice caps in the Arctic to melt. Seems easy to me.
We should expect to hit many new records (minimum ice extent, warmest year, etc) during the next El Nino since the oceans will become an additional source of heat for the atmosphere. How many more decades of the warmest decade being the most recent decade do we need. Don’t we have enough evidence to warrant concern?
To repeat then, over the past 201 years – and one can go back to the Roman era to continue the longer-term trend – only one 25 year period of that entire interval (from 1973 through 1998) did CO2 increase at the same time that temperatures increased.
Since 1997-1998, temperatures have been steady/declining while CO2 continues to increase. You cannot claim any 50 year interval of CO2 and temperature relationship.
You claim a precautionary principle must be forced on the world. In doing so, you ARE demanding that a 100% guaranteed failure is being forced down the world’s throat in the name of “maybe” preventing a part of of a fraction of one percent of warming … that “may” occur but only after hundreds of years of continued CO2 production at the current levels. Maybe. Further, you have not established nor can you establish! – that any actual harm IS occurring NOW from continued CO2 production at today’s levels.
What concern? Given two choices -(1) By deliberately restricting energy, clean water, food, heat, material protection and storage, faster more reliable shipping, better sewage collection and treatment, more irrigation water and farming, less expensive pesticides,more effective fertilizers, better tooling, and safer food preparation and handling …. all in the name of CAGW “concern”. You – deliberately then and without cause will murder hundreds of millions, and continue condemning billions to short lives mired in sewage, squalor and disease.
(2) Providing less expensive energy, concrete, steel, and more electricity worldwide competitively and without third world/UN/IPCC/”green corruption” government bribery and manipulation. Billions live better, more productive lives. In all cases, life expectancy rises and birth rates decline. Ecology – which now CAN BE afforded – IS afforded and the world is cleaned up of the localized dirt and pollution now found outside of the richer, more capitalized first world countries.
But, you see, enviro’s DON’T WANT better lives for billions. They demand rather – in their public books, their speeches, their legislative actions political funding decisions, and their massed public demonstration the death of billions.
“By the same arguement, shouldn’t we address AGW… just in case.”
I’m getting a bit tired of this argument. Given the complexity of the global climate system and how little we actually know about it, how can we possibly know that what we do won’t make things worse?
Often, it actually *IS* better to do nothing than to do something.
I would say the problem is not AGU itself but the fact that AGU and similar organisations are not democratic and open enough in their decision chain.
Was the position statement discussed and decided within a forum in the organisation? Or was it only decided by a small group who influenced the ones who could decide over the head of the majority?
We have seen with APS and Ivar Giaever who tried to organise a discussion within the organisation that such was not possible.
Not sure if it was the same with AGU but I ask myself if the members have their say and they elect or dump the lead if a majority of them want to do so even in interim not only “at election time”?
With a more open and transparent organisation such political statements would not pass through if they are not supported by the organisation.
So my guess would be that such organisations will pass sooner or later a reorganisation process or will be marginalised.
Maybe this will be the learning of climate change after all.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 10, 2012 at 10:12 am
Well said.
…………………………………………
Sensor operator says:
February 10, 2012 at 7:45 am
The best we can do is compare the current environmental conditions to those that existed in the past. At this point, the rate of increase in CO2 which we currently observe best matches events that caused massive extinctions. Granted, we are looking at different mechanisms so we can’t do an apples to apples comparison. But, it does seem reasonable to claim that the human species has been able to thrive due to a relative calm climate, especially over the past 5,000+ years.
The last 5,000+ years has been in an interglacial, and if you’d really compared “the current environmental conditions to those that existed in the past”, you’d have known that we’re following the same pattern now, back into glacial. Carbon dioxide lagged by around 800 years all the dramatic rises of temperature which ended glacials every 100,000 years – it is shown to be utterly irrelevant to these great changes between global cooling and global warming when gazillions tons of ice melted and raised sea levels 300ft+.
And no, I am not against someone providing an alternate explanation that can be backed up with evidence. SHOW ME DATA! Yes, there is onus on skeptics to prove things. Right now, most skeptics will make a claim about a singluar event or place, e.g. Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC. I think more than enough people have acknowledge the 2035 metling is wrong. Good. Let’s drop it. Stop bringing it up. Because skeptics will just bring up 10 other things that scientists must do due diligence to point out errors and/or misconceptions in the skpetics arguement.
These are just examples of the how to lie with statistics that pro AGW’s use instead of science. If you have a look through the archives here you’ll find lots of discussions on the manipulation of data by pro AGW data providers. Data is precisely what they don’t provide. Like the Hockey Stick, every piece of ‘data’ provided is fraudulent science, shown time and again, haven’t you read the emails?, and, beginning with Keeling and his choice of measuring his mythical ‘background CO2’ from the largest active volcano in the world, surrounded by immense carbon dioxide producing volcanic activity creating islands in a warm sea, and gosh, such a clever scientist, in less than two years he found a trend and proof that man made levels of CO2 were rising…
..other scientists take years to see if there’s any trend.
Here – an example of real data and junk data, see if you can spot the propaganda figure:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/09/the-liberal-attack-on-science-acorn-style-the-ipcc-fabrication-of-atmospheric-co2-residency-time.html
Here’s something relevant to Keeling’s claim that he could measure ‘man-made’ carbon dioxide:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
“A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. … Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”
There’s lots of interesting data noted just on that site, for example: “In spite of Mason (2003) & Kaser (2004), which so well document this drastic example of how deforestation affects the environment, Gore (2006), some two years after these publications still insisted that the Kilimanjaro glacial retreat was caused by global warming, never mind the presence of penitentes confirm that aridity and not temperature was the mechanism. Of notable coincidence, the Mason (2003) reference is buried behind the “premium content” blind of http://nature.com without so much as a volume, page number, or abstract available to the visiting public. ”
So why doesn’t your side want to show the real data, something to hide?
Here’s another example of your data manipulation from the same site:
“In Cleveland & Morris (2006, p. 427) Hans Suess and the Suess Effect, used to account for contamination of radiocarbon dates by various phenomena, are given the following entries:
Suess, Hans 1909-1993, U.S Chemist who developed an improved method of carbon-14 dating and used it to document that the burning of fossil fuels had a profound influence on the earth’s stocks and flows of carbon. (Fossil fuels are so ancient that they contain no C-14.)
Suess Effect Climate Change. a relative change in the ratio of C-14/C or C- 13/C for a carbon pool reservoir; this indicates the addition of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere.
However, this is only half of the explanation offered by Suess. In Suess (1955, p. 415) we read:”
Oops, mustn’t show that, must I??! Further: “The misuse of the Suess Effect as a fossil fuel fingerprint instead of an empirical standard for the correction of carbon dating contamination, lead to an initially idiosyncratic expansion of this concept by Keeling (1979), who sought to include 13C depletion of vegetation and its effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere is enriched in 13CO2 by the process of photosynthesis, which favours the assimilation of 12C into plant tissue during growth (Furquhar et al., 1989). This is used to differentiate between terrestrial and oceanic CO2 sources (Keeling et al., 2005), and the concept, proposed by Craig (1954), is actually older than Suess’ original research. Moreover, plant based fossil fuel derivatives are therefore considered to be 13C depleted. Following this line of logic, fossil fuel emissions, being derived from plants, should be 13CO2 depleted as well. However, when the Keeling (1979) article expanded its internal definition of the Suess Effect to include this observation, it was once again to the exclusion of volcanic influence.
“In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, 13C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, 13C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of 13C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted etc.etc.”
Too much data, yet?
Here’s some more: “1.2 The Location of CO2 Monitoring Station in regions enriched by volcanic CO2
Volcanic CO2 emission raises some serious doubts concerning the anthropogenic origins of the rising atmospheric CO2 trend. In fact, the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample of the Troposphere. For example, Cape Kumukahi is located in a volcanically active province in Eastern Hawaii, while Mauna Loa Observatory is on Mauna Loa, an active volcano – both observatories within 50km of the highly active Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa plume. Samoa is within 50 km of the active volcanoes Savai’i and/or Upolo, while Kermandec Island observatory is located within 10 km of the active Raoul Island volcano.
“Observatories located within active volcanic provinces are not the only problem. There is also the problem of pressure systems carrying volcanic plumes several hundred kilometers to station locations. For example, the observatory in New Zealand, located somewhere along the 41st parallel, is within 250 km of Tanaki and the entire North Island active volcanic province. Low pressure system centres approaching and high pressure system centres departing the Cook Strait will displace volcanic plumes from the North island to the South Island. etc.”
Goodness me, and the spiel that accompanies descriptions of the measuring sites make such a point of saying they are sited in pristine conditions without CO2 production to spoil the measurements.
There’s plenty of data provided that AGW is junk science, you’re just not seeing it.
Alright, a conversation about data! I like it!
First, stop the ad hominem attacks on “fraudulent science”. For all of the claims of bad science, every time these people are investigated, they are cleared. And the e-mails? On climategate? Seriously? If I took all of the emails I sent in one day and selected various parts from different emails, one could probably show, well, absolutely anything. If you take these quotes out of context (and the original authors have responded to these items) you misinterpret what they were saying.
Let’s talk about the one link that goes into great detail about volcanoes and CO2. My background is physics, astronomy, and oceanography so it will take a moment to absorb…
Okay, so as far as I can tell, the author’s main contention is that volcanic sources of CO2 are much larger than anthropogenic sources. Well, the only problem I can find is the only person that appears to be saying this is Mr Casey and every other scientific organization around the world seem to agree that he is wrong. It seems hard to believe that we have missed this apparenty enormous source.
And there is a claim that being on top of a volcano is a problem. Well, it would be if scientists didn’t take into account many factors, including the changing winds over the course of a day at this particular volcano. Maybe a better answer would be to look at data collected at other locations around the world. What do you know, they all agree. So it seems the claim this really isn’t a problem.
And if volcanos were a huge source, you would think major eruptions, which can be seen in the recent climate record, would also be seen in the CO2 record. Unless the author is wrong and volcanos are not a major source, especially compared to anthropogenic sources.
So right now the bulk of you “evidence” is one person with a website that says everybody else has it wrong. Sorry, that is really hard to believe. Maybe the reason we are not seeing “plenty of data that AGW is junk science” is that people are throwing junk science at it.
Show me one paper in a peer-reviewed journal that backs this paper up (and not just papers referenced by Mr. Casey since I don’t have time to make sure he did not misinterpret things).
The problem is in order for him to be right, the increase in volcanic CO2 had to perfectly coincide with the increase of CO2 from anthropogenic sources. That is a huge stretch.
“…our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century.”
Absolutely laughable goal! Not gonna happen. Dream on, dreamers.
Sensor operator says:
“For all of the models and evidence that has been provided by various persons, including Ben Santer… Yes, they use models.”
Earth to Sensor: models are not evidence. Empirical, testable, directly measurable data is evidence. Models, even if originally based on reliable raw data, have been massaged until they provide the required results that someone with an agenda paid for: Garbage In, Gospel Out.
And based on your comments, it seems that you believe that scientific skeptics have something to prove. We do not; the entire onus is on those flogging the AGW conjecture. They make the claims. They make the alarming predictions. They collect the grant loot. But they cannot validate their claims because the planet is falsifying them. They cannot produce evidence of global harm from CO2, so their alarming predictions fail. And they are wasting the public’s money based on a repeatedly falsified conjecture.
The climate null hypothesis falsifies the alternative CAGW conjecture. The rate of global warming has remained within close error bars since the 1600’s; the same rising trend both before and after CO2 began to rise. If that doesn’t tell you that the CO2 effect is insignificant, then you don’t understand the null hypothesis, or how it works, or why it is so critical to the “climate change” issue.
I feel we are getting a bit off track, here. My reason for making this active demonstration against one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world is only one: scientific integrity. I refuse being part of an organization with a declared policy of more-or-less forbidding open and frank discussion about one of the most pressing societal questions.
As all scientists dealing with nature knows very well, from the work of Newton to that of Einstein, all our “knowledge” is based on viable theories. The predictions we make on weather and climate are based on numerous constrained theories. Although I have been weary of the gross political status of climate science ever since 2003, it was my review of three of the chapters in the draft AR5 that ‘tipped the bucket’. Thus, it is ‘virtually certain’ that the decision was made thereafter, – I neded to stand up against the deconstruction and political corruption of Western ideas.
My main question to the AGU administration is: why was it at all necessary to make a political stance, in the first place? I cannot really see why you should risk offending some of your members and supporters by making this particular statement. My hunch is that there may be something very wrong with parts of the “climate science”, whitch no longer can be seen as a natural science, but is also part of the exact science of mathematics, etc. If it is necessary to make a political statement in order of “prooving” scientific results, then we are entering the dark ages again.
Martin Hovland –
My main question to the AGU administration is: why was it at all necessary to make a political stance, in the first place? I cannot really see why you should risk offending some of your members and supporters by making this particular statement. My hunch is that there may be something very wrong with parts of the “climate science”, whitch no longer can be seen as a natural science, but is also part of the exact science of mathematics, etc. If it is necessary to make a political statement in order of “prooving” scientific results, then we are entering the dark ages again.
We entered the dark ages some time ago, it’s already an established pattern. Members of the Royal Society tried to get rid of it, managed to get some of it toned down but the warmist green agenda ethos remains. The American Meteorological Society has been taken over so completely that a year of two ago attacks began in general against members, someone put out that any not toeing the party line shouldn’t be able to get work, and recently there was more along those lines. Sorry, writing this from memory and the detail escapes me; there was something recently about further developments on WUWT.
Here’s something I’ve just found on it: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/global-warming-activists-seek-to-purge-deniers-among-local-weathermen/
It began as this says, when they did a survey a while back and found that most members didn’t believe in the ‘global warming’ propaganda, which has now become ‘climate change’ – there’s a concerted effort by some to denigrate their knowledge and they’re very big on calling them “deniers” who should be penalised for holding such a view. The society itself is fully now committed to the cause: http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/global_warming_skeptics_to_tak.html
“When it comes to global warming, the American Meteorological Society has strong views: “Human activities are a major contributor to climate change,” the society says, and “increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature.” ”
Likewise: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm The Geological Society of America (GSA)
As for the AGU – it’s been at the forefront of campaigning against “deniers” for some time – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/11/climate-scientists-plan-campaign-against-global-warming-skeptics/
“November 8th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
“The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
“A new article in the LA Times says that the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is enlisting the help of 700 scientists to fight back against a new congress that is viewed as a bunch of backwoods global warming deniers who are standing in the way of greenhouse gas regulations and laws required to same humanity from itself.
“Scientific truth, after all, must prevail. And these scientists apparently believe they have been endowed with the truth of what has caused recent warming.
“The message just hasn’t gotten across. ”
In other words, it’s much worse than you think…
Oh, and again from a poor memory bank, I recall something about the AMS, that some members wanted a contact list of members to initiate discussion about the politicisation of the society, they were refused, although it had been available previously for other notices and such.
Really, if the members who are appalled by this kind of takeover of their societies and associations don’t find some way to make a stand, then they’ll just have to live with it. The AMS campaign against its own members is a chilling indication of the climate of fear the greenies are generating.
And if you haven’t seen the 10/10 video which targets everyone in the population – there are discussions on it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/page/2/?s=10%2F10+video
But, as I said earlier, this is only going where the IPCC leads. I don’t know what you’ve written, or what you’ve lectured on, but if you’ve contributed to the party line …? Have you objected to the IPCC pushing this agenda?
Sensor operator says:
February 10, 2012 at 2:19 pm
“Alright, a conversation about data! I like it!
First, stop the ad hominem attacks on “fraudulent science”. For all of the claims of bad science, every time these people are investigated, they are cleared. And the e-mails? On climategate? Seriously? If I took all of the emails I sent in one day and selected various parts from different emails, one could probably show, well, absolutely anything. If you take these quotes out of context (and the original authors have responded to these items) you misinterpret what they were saying.”
Sensor there are separate threads that discuss the e-mails. You should go there, read, analyse and discuss to get a better understanding and also help others see your point of view. Just generally denying there is anything in there is not helping to improve understanding.
Sensor operator says:
“And if volcanos were a huge source, you would think major eruptions, which can be seen in the recent climate record, would also be seen in the CO2 record. Unless the author is wrong and volcanos are not a major source, especially compared to anthropogenic sources.”
You obviously know exactly how many volcanic vents are under the oceans and have a clear view of those and the gases that comes out, but I believe our science is not so far, we just begin to evaluate it, give us a decade or two then we will better know. Maybe the volcanic activity is negligible after all but I trust our data is incomplete.
“We never see most of the earth’s volcanic eruptions, because most of them occur undetected in the deep ocean.”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/geology/submarine_eruptions.html
Sensor operator says:
“So right now the bulk of you “evidence” is one person with a website that says everybody else has it wrong. Sorry, that is really hard to believe. Maybe the reason we are not seeing “plenty of data that AGW is junk science” is that people are throwing junk science at it.”
There is enough junk science in AGW and the skeptics role is to point it out. The Himalaya glaciers was one of the case, there are other cases too.
This is the role of skeptics, not to build a parallel, different theory.
I trust the human produced CO2 has been beneficial so far. Can you point out to what disasters have been caused by the slight warming that we have lived since mid of previous century? From what I have seen NASA has measured some greening of the world in the last 3 decades of about 10%.
I trust it may be a combination of the warming and the increased CO2 that caused this, could be interesting to see some more scientific work in this direction, it was very scarce, not sure how much money is made available for such studies.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
If 10% of the world food is due to increased warming and CO2 since mid of previous century, then
700 000 000 people are now fed due to it. Any many other species survive and thrive due to it.
Another study showed increase of 50% of the biosphere carbon circulation since the LIA. That is huge!
Martin Hovland –
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home has several links to articles which you find of interest:
Political science at academies Peter Foster National Post Feb 11 2012
Royal Society Exposed Again in Post Normal Corporate Fraud John O’Sullivan Guest Post Feb 11 2012
The Royal Society is a joke James Delingpole Telegraph Blogs Feb 10 2012
Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change Dr Benny Peiser GWPF via email Feb9 2012
Sensor operator says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:24 am
Please don’t “imply” Sensor. That’s not data.
And quit complaining about “ad hom attacks against science”. That means you don’t know the definition of “ad hominem”, which is an attack against A PERSON, not a thing!
As for the rest of your arguments, you’ve been resoundly rebutted by several here, and the balance of power–through data, logic, or science, is NOT in your favor.
But stick around and learn something. Most of us were true believers in “The Cause” and unknowingly drinking propaganda from “The Team” until we started investigating and found that:
The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified!
And this is something you CANNOT use as “data” or “logic”:
You can’t use the EXCUSE of CO2 being the culprit just because you haven’t found the culprit. Besides, are you REALLY SURE temperatures are rising?
Are you??
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
And no, scientists DON’T have to prove things to 100% (which never happens in science), they just have to quit screwing with the data (oh, is that an ad hom attack??) and open themselves up to inspection. But if you’re championing people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones, good luck with your argument. You’ll need it.
And regarding your reference to solar activity, read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/quantifying-the-solar-cycle-24-temperature-decline/
Then you continue with:
Science isn’t a “connect-the-dot” grade school activity, Sensor. You should know that.
But again, stick around and learn something. You might just become a climate realist someday.
Sensor operator,
You should really pay attention to the facts that Rocky Road, Lars, Myrrh and others are providing. Every claim made by those blaming “carbon” for polar bear drownings, global warming, droughts, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, melting glaciers, less Arctic ice, etc., etc., have been either falsified, or there is no verifiable, empirical evidence verifying the claims. Doesn’t that tell you something?
And there is much that we don’t know [and even more that we don’t know that we don’t know]. To add to Lars’ link, only a few years ago millions of new undersea volcanoes were discovered:
Why are there so many more volcanoes undersea than on land? We don’t know. How much CO2 do they emit? We don’t know. What we do know is that within measurable error bands, ocean pH is not changing despite the apparently the vast and continuing volcanic CO2 infusion. Thus, the “ocean acidification” scare takes a major hit.
In fact, none of the alarmist predictions have survived scrutiny. Reasonable people would reassess their belief in CO2=CAGW if all of their conjectures and hypotheses were either falsified or could not be shown to exist. And that is what has happened. AGW is simply a conjecture; it has not been proven [although my own view is that a doubling of [beneficial] CO2 may warm the planet by ≈1°C, ±0.5°C]. I could be wrong, though. As I said, there is no proof that the added CO2 causes any warming. Yes, the planet has steadily warmed since the LIA, along the same trend line both before and after CO2 began to rise. AGW is a conjecture, not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. And it lacks empirical supporting evidence.
So take a few deep breaths, try to relax, and consider the likely possibility that you have received misinformation. The reality, based on observations, appears to be that the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial. There is no identifiable global harm due to more CO2, therefore CO2 is ipso facto harmless, no? And the additional food production is entirely a good thing, no? Even if CO2 doubles [unlikely], it will still be a tiny, beneficial trace gas, essential for all life on earth. There is no evidence to the contrary. So follow the evidence, follow the money, and try to rethink your position regarding “carbon”. You’re made of it, you know.
Garrett, Goracle et al.:
I can’t believe people are still using the oil company canard – when for years oil companies (and other Fortune 500 types) have been falling over each other to demonstrate their warmist credentials. Here are some examples I’ve collected – mostly ads in major magazines and newspapers:
1. In the Economist, June 2, 2007 (the issue has a special section on business responses to global warming): a full-page ad by ExxonMobil titled, “We’re working to reduce emissions” with follow-up text along those lines.
2. In the Atlantic July/Aug 2009: a full-page ad by Shell titled, “Why an Oil Company President Supports Cap & Trade” Full page of text.
3. An ad in the Guardian (11/22/08, p. 29) by Shell, which starts off, “Tackling climate change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively.”
4. In a column on Townhall (Dec 29, 2007) titled “The Five Worst CEOs of 2007” guess who tops the list? John Browne of BP: “Browne resigned this year partly because his global warming strategy failed miserably.”
From this I conclude that if anything, Statoil officials are likely to disapprove of Dr. Hovland’s public statements.
So the real question is, why do warmists keep bringing this argument to the table, when the assumptions underlying their innuendos are so clearly false? Obviously, in part it’s because it’s one of those plausible arguments that’s too good to discard even if it has no relation to what’s actually going on in the real world. As such it would seem to reflect the basic bad faith that warmists show again and again in their arguments and actions.
I regret very much that I let go my memberships in AGU (and AAAS) some years ago. I wish I had waited, so I could resign now to protest their asinine global-warming statements. At least IEEE has not yet committed to that ideology to the same degree, so I am still a member.