Guest essay by Tom Fuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Peril of Great Causes
342 Comments
Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history – a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history – despite the fact that they tried and are still trying to get the authors fired.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_optional/Soon2003_paleorecord.pdf
Versus Michael Mann’s hockey stick showing there was no enigmatic medieval period (even tried to change the name) with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing in the twentieth century – but was based on incredible data-selection techniques and was mostly based on one tree core series, the bristlecone pine trees from one mountain which cannot possibly be expected to provide a reliable indicator of climate – the worst type of science but still accepted by climate science because that it what they do – rewrite history and get all the facts wrong.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
An objective person knowing all the facts would conclude Soon’s work reflected science and the IPCC/Mann’s work does not.
You all are getting off track with your point-counterpoint arguments. What really matters is what was in Mr. Fuller’s post. In case you haven’t bothered to read it:
It doesn’t matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST’s Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t matter that this information is old.
What matters for the Cause is that headlines of supposed misbehavior hit the news at the same time as Pachauri’s disgrace.
The problem is the obvious collusion to put out this smear campaign to protect “The Cause”.
Thanks milodonharlani. Now when I take a look at your referenced link I see the following:
“The journal’s publisher had “no specific disclosure form that I know of,” she says.”
“and that, in some cases, journal conflict-of-interest policies appear to require such disclosure.”
“But that policy wasn’t in place at the time of Soon’s submission,”
“Conflict is often in the eye of the beholder, she says, and researchers often accept all kinds of funding that doesn’t necessarily skew their peer-reviewed publications. “I’m for full disclosure,” she says, “but I’m not sure how we’re going to address this.””
The article makes it clear that the rules are not iron clad and it would be easy to ‘break’ a rule that is not clear in the first place.
Now that icouldnthelpit has got the list he may now want to find problems with Soon’s work. Peer reviewers obviously missed them all.
“””””…..
Bill Illis
February 25, 2015 at 4:14 am
Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history – a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history …..””””
Bill,
I’m familiar with that paper of Baliunas and Soon, from the days when I read Tech Central Station Blog.
As I recall, they reviewed maybe as many as 200 peer reviewed papers from all over the place, and reached a conclusion that the MWP and the LIA were not “Northern Hemisphere” phenomena, as Michael Mann tried to imply in his hockey stick graph, but were in fact true global events, with evidence for that coming from all over the place.
The odd thing, is that they are being chastised and marginalized for pretty much publishing a bibliography of peer reviewed work by other esteemed climate scientists, that supported the case for the MWP and also the LIA, both of which Mann sought to exterminate.
Sally B also wrote a great paper that showed why the sea level in the vicinity of the Maldives, is anomalous. It relates to the great depth and “land lockedness” of that part of the Indian Ocean.
G
Why is taking fossil fuel money wrong for sceptics when these climate change bodies take it? Here is some more of the brazen hypocrisy:
July 9, 2013
200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source
Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
http://fair-questions.com/post-4/
Fuller makes it clear that Warmists happily do wrong and their side goes along with the humbug for years. Here is Pachauri’s behavior while head of the IPCC. As is clear to see they are happy to attack BIG OIL connections but don’t mind their connections. Pachauri was a directory of an Indian oil company while head of the IPCC too. It never ends.
On the 20th April 2002 Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri was elected Chairman of the IPCC. In 2005 Pachauri set up a residual oil extraction technology company called Glorioil. It advised and gave technical assistance to oil companies on extracting residual oil from fields which would otherwise have been abandoned. Pachauri is no longer linked with the now defunct firm now re-named Glori Energy based in Houston, Texas.
2007 – “Glorioil delivers state of the art bio-technology solutions to improve and increase recovery from mature oil wells. Operating from our new state of the art 20,000 sf headquarters in Houston, TX, GloriOil is ready to discuss and apply this breakthrough technology to increase recovery from your mature assets today.”
On the 20th April 2002 Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri was elected Chairman of the IPCC.
Here is where he served during and after 2002 (while head of the IPCC) according to Teri, his organisation. In no particular order.
• Board of Directors of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (2006 to 2009)
• Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1999 to 2003)
• Board of Directors of GAIL (India) Ltd. (2003 to 2004) – [natural gas processing & distribution]
• Member of the International Advisory Council for the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies & Research Center (KAPSARC), Saudi Arabia (2009 onwards)
His Teri institutue organises the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit. Over the years its sponsors have been oil and gas companies.
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
• 2007: Partners – BP
• 2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
• 2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
The wall of NO shame continues from Al Gore and Dana Nuccitelli to almost anyone one you care to pick. They are a bunch of shameless hypocrites.
icouldnthelpit
February 25, 2015 at 1:59 am
Jimbo. It’s not wrong to take fossil fuel money. It’s wrong not to state where your money came from.
It is wrong to be hypocritical. It is wrong to CONDEMN fossil fuels as a danger to the planet, then take fossil fuel money. It is wrong to assist BIG OIL to extract more oil if you believe that fossil fuels will destroy the biosphere. It is wrong to take money from fossil fuel funded Al Jazeera then tell the world about the dangers of fossil fuels. There is so much wrong with what you claim that you leave me almost speechless. Is hypocrisy OK with you???? You have to wonder whether these Warmists actually BELIEVE that co2 will lead to dangerous warming.
Please give me information about Soon’s failure to disclose where his money came from. I have got some stuff to do right now, but once I get back and get your details I will investigate matters a little deeper.
PS if it was for his joint paper ‘Why Models Run Hot’ then I have to say that to the best of my understanding the paper was not funded at all, let alone by fossil fuel money. I maybe wrong, but please give me the information.
icouldnthelpit, next time provide me with a link or at least a reference publication and date.
As for choosing to ignore my “whataboutery” – that is the best course of action for you my friend otherwise you would have to either disapprove of hypocrisy or not. Either answer would make you look a little foolish regarding taking fossil fuel money by climate change groups.
Now onto Soon. The reference you give appears on the New York Times on FEB. 21, 2015 (here)
You earlier said:
What’s now come to light is that he apparently didn’t disclose who his paymasters were.
The New York Times said:
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
So the referenced quote which you quoted has clearly said that at least there was disclosure in some of his scientific papers.
Now please point me to the scientific papers where he failed to provide his conflict of interest declaration where it was a requirement? I can’t see it in the NYT or in the Climate Investigations Center. You can ignore everything I have state EXCEPT my last question. Please point me to the scientific papers where he failed to provide his conflict of interest declaration where it was a requirement?
Interestingly the New York Times says
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center.
I went to the Climate Investigations Center to find out WHO FUNDS THEM, but came up with nothing. Disclosure is a funny old game.
icouldnthelpit
February 25, 2015 at 7:34 am
Jimbo, I don’t have the actual list. I’m sure it’ll surface soon. We’ll just have to be patient.
I too shall remain patient until the list of papers “surface soon”. I think however that it’s pretty poor show when the NYT repeats allegations supplied by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center without giving us examples of the offending papers. If we had the list we could then look for ourselves whether there was a requirement, listed affiliations etc. Now you see why I like to look for myself rather than taking anyone’s word for it.
Pit,
It would have taken you seconds to find “The List”, a la McCarthy, along with a discussion of the disclosure issues:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/02/climate-skeptic-s-fossil-fuel-funding-puts-spotlight-journal-conflict-policies
This is a tempest in a teapot. Far more worrisome is the failure of CACA advocates to archive their “data”. Also the funding of Greenshirts by Putin.
Please state what parts of Soon’s work you imagine has been “refuted”.
Thanks.
Well in the last 65 years, I have read one hell of a lot of scientific papers, even ones written by people like Marie Curie or Albert Einstein.
I don’t recall ever reading such a scientific paper that included in the body of the paper where the funds came from to support the author while he was writing the paper.
Usually, if any there was a footnote that mentioned the affiliation of the author(s).
But most of those papers concentrated on the science of the work, and not on the politics.
Mr idon’tknowenoughtocommentrationally seems to think that funding is the most important part of any science paper.
It has been made quite clear that the Harvard Smithonian Center for Astrophysics got money from BigOil to hire Soon to write for them.
So why not try learning something yourself, so you don’t have to take Wikipedia for a reputable science source?
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
If it’s been a long time since you read Orwell’s prophetic 1984, you might want to read it again. The parallels with the present world are uncanny. But stay out of range of the two-way telescreen while reading it, to avoid arousing the suspicions of the thinkpol (Thought Police), which could get you sent to a joycamp.
“Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
But currently the necessary organizational and mechanical infrastructure (e.g., memory holes) is not yet in place to track down and replace all existing copies of malreported published materials. Pending the full implementation of the revolution, it is still necessary for Big Brother’s loyal followers to attempt to discredit such materials with whatever tactics they think might be effective. Let’s see how many can doublethink themselves away from the implications of the narrative and step up in fluent duckspeak in the Replies.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/winston-smith-loves-big-brother-even-more-now-that-he-has-returned-to-the-fold-and-discovered-global-warming/
If you examine some of Bevan’s previous postings, they include well researched and professionally presented documents that clearly cost money to produce.
One suspects he is one of Greenpeace’s ( or similar ) footsoldiers , assigned to monitor WUWT around the clock.
Given the productivity of WUWT this montoring must be soaking up quite a bit of Greenpeaces’s resources , which some might think could be put to better use in eg actually preventing Japan and Norway turning the whales into sushi or preventing the last of the rain forests being destroyed to make biomass plantations.
Well Guber perhaps you should call the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for ASTROPHYSICS and let them know that they have been employing someone for 14 years that is not an astrophysicist to do research involving astrophysics.
I understand that to the laymen it is a befuddling concept that not all active researchers hold a degree in what they actually end up researching. It’s simply too difficult of a concept for you to wrap that nugget around isn’t it? We could make a list a mile long automatically disqualifying research because of your logic. Let’s start with Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician major, not a climatologist. Mann is a physicist that specialized in semiconductors when he was earning his degrees, what would he know about paleoclimatology?
“””””……
Gubulgaria
February 25, 2015 at 2:34 am
Soon isn’t an astrophysicist, he’s an aeronautical engineer.
Did you mean ‘are you an aeronautical engineer?’…..”””””
So someone is an Automobile Engineer because he worked for 40 years, on the production line in the Ford Motor s plant; installing Bolt 39 ??
That’s like calling someone with a PhD, a “Scientist”.
Dr. Laura has a PhD. She doesn’t know anything about any kind of science; or ice cream making either.
I believe the Ph is short for philospophy; which is all about holding forth on subjects one knows nothing about.
A real scientist would have a DSc as in Doctor of Science. I only have a BSc, so I’m only a part scientist; but I had to go to work for a living to complete my education, and to contribute to the taxpayer funded support for all the 65% of US Physics PhD graduates, who never ever get a full time paying job in their field of expertise. Well they become post doc fellows at some institute.
In the UK A(neurin) Bevan was the left wing Socialist Minister of Health who took credit for introducing the National Health Service, although it was originally conceived by Sir William Beveridge in his 1942 Report to Churchill’s coalition government.
Bevan represented a Welsh Mining constituency and when visiting it, would invariably leave his expensive car in a neighbouring constituency while having his agent pick him up and drive him over the border in his own old second-hand vehicle.
His hypocrisy was noted. He together with two of his Labour Party colleagues sued the Spectator for libel when that magazine reported on their drunken misbehaviour in Venice, where they had been attending a conference. The politicians won and were paid substantial damages, which were never returned even, years later, when they finally admitted that the report was correct.
I wonder if there is any genetic link between Bevan and A. Bevan?
Wow, all the old sock puppets are out in force this week. It might appear to the casual observer as though there has been a concerted and co-ordinated effort to double down on the message for the cause by character assassination of respected academics, perhaps in the hopes that Their climate guru might have his alleged criminal perversions swept into the ever-growing hillock of ignorance under the carpet.
The Chiefio,aka E.M.Smith has coined the most appropriate description that fits the trolls at the head of these comments to perfection.
As two can play at name calling and skeptics have endured a decade and half of vicious name calling and deadly threats and calls for beheading and 10;10 videos of killing kids and after constraining the language for all that time maybe it is time for the skeptics and those denigrated and attacked to return the favour.
The Chiefio’s term for the vicious public denigrators of skeptic climate scientists and skeptic commenters.
“Slime mongers”
Bevan,
Why is there suddenly record snowfall and suddenly record cold temperatures on the Greenland Ice sheet?
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Why is there suddenly record sea ice in the Antarctic and ‘recovery’ of sea ice, including multi year sea ice in the Arctic?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
What caused cyclic warming and cooling in the past? Why do solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with each and every warming and cooling cycle in the paleo record?
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Why are the GCMs’ incorrect?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
What is currently happening to the sun? Is there any possibility the entire IPCC paradigm is incorrect? i.e. The majority (roughly 75%) of the warming in the last 50 years has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
The peculiar solar cycle 24 — where do we stand?
Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it.
We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.
Other, more recent data sets, such as the Kitt Peak and MDI magnetograms, and they too also show that the polar fields were weak during the cycle 24 minimum compared with the cycle 23 minimum (de Toma 2011; Gopalswamy et al. 2012). The structure of the solar corona was also quite different from what is expected during a normal minimum. As can be seen from the LASCO images shown in Fig. 2 the solar corona has the canonical solar-minimum structure during the cycle 23 minimum, but the coronal did not have a simple configuration of streamers in an equatorial belt as it was during the previous minimum in 1996.
It’s nastier than that:
Greenpeace are trying to get the IRS to go after Willie Soon based on the same silly accusations. Here, in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (whose name they didn’t get right).
Others are going after Judith Curry, trying to dig up anything that would suit the same agenda.
A sad state of the world. But it’s good to see where they’re coming from, and what they really would like to (be able to) do if they only had more power of government coersion.
And of course Koskinen is the administration sock-puppet thug who declared that “lost” IRS emails could never be recovered. Emails which were partially recovered, despite destruction of PC hard drives and foot-dragging beyond retention periods, by a simple FOIA request made at a later date.
It is clear that he would be willing to do almost anything to please the white house and sympatico NGOs. Another reason that the IRS needs to be deconstructed and replaced ASAP.
Bevan – either elaborate or don’t hang around to get the first word in if its just a jibe form the playbook.
icouldnthelpit – his paymasters are the Smithsonian and Harvard. They took the money and signed the contracts. Now if you have some data that you find suspect, elaborate on that.
Funding sources are only important if the paper reports new data that is difficult to replicate. Identify that or give it a rest.
A publication has the right to request that papers submitted include sources of funding. If you don’t like those roles, don’t submit your document to that publication.The same for the Smithsonian for their employees (really employees by association since they do not draw a salary from the Smithsonian).
I find it peculiar and somewhat disturbing that Greenpeace and the NYT are going after Soon for the wrong reasons. The funding is immaterial, what really counts is the contents of the papers. I have read them and find no scientific reason to doubt his conclusions. They are well documented as regards science and that is what counts.
The lack of ability to point out significant flaw(s) in Dr. Soon’s science appears to be the motivation for the attacks.
“If I can attack your theory, i will do so. If I cannot, I will attack you.”
What warmists hate about Dr. Soon is the fact that his “irreducibly simple model” works, and even worse, cost taxpayers nothing, while the 70+ “The C02 Did-It” computer are laughably inaccurate and shockingly expensive.
The AGW “computer scientists” give a whole new meaning to the term for expensive software that promises everything and delivers nothing — “Vapor Ware.”
Reply to Bevan Thread ==> Bevan’s off-topic comment continues his obfuscation of the Soon issue started at my earlier essay.
Three important things to know about the Southern/Smithsonian/Soon issue:
1) There is and was no hidden funding of any kind — all grants were above-board through the Smithsonian’s normal grant-receiving channels.
2) Southern Services Company is not a fossil fuel company. It is an electric utility — it generates and supplies electricity throughout the American South. It does have coal-burning electric plants — it is building the only new nuclear power plant in the USA, it operates a huge solar electric plant in the Southwest, it donates millions of dollars to environmental projects throughout the United States.
3) There was and is no possible Conflict of Interest for Soon from the unfettered general research grant from Southern Services Company. No papers were sponsored, no specific research requested, no relationship between Soon’s research and Southern’s businesses — plainly stated — Nothing Done.
On the matter of Soon and funding I think it’s time we entered common sense times.
Wouldn’t Willie Soon make his life a lot easier by simply towing the party line? Funding would POUR IN as his former adversaries cheered and hugged the poor guy.
As regards poor science may I refer you to the ENTIRE body of work produced by the IPCC. Here is an example of poor science.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Warmists are now desperate and sad. Since they like to dredge up that ‘thing of the past’ re Soon let’s see.
Where was the outrage when a lead author of an IPCC report waspaid by Greenpeace? Oooops! Activist backed Climastrology – which leads to Himalayan total glacier meltdown by 2035. Oooops! It was the WWF what made me do it guv. It was just like voodoo, really.
“Dear NY Times Re Willie Soon: Character assassination is not science.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/ny-times-willie-soon-character-assassination-is-not-science/
The problem is also the Tom Fullers of the world’s ignorance.
Solar Power (for the U.S. Economy) Is a L1e
Re: The Myth of Solar Energy
Ozzie Zehner video: “Green Illusions” (youtube)
(I do NOT endorse ALL of its content — some is highly accurate, however)
[6:55] — As of 2012, less than ONE TENTH OF 1%, i.e., less than .001% (< .1 Quads), of total energy (114 Quads. for N. America) is supplied by solar. [7:11] — Graphic of N. American total energy v. solar (tiny dot v. big bucket).
Caveat re: Mr. Zehner: He is an irrationally anti-nuclear power, Church of Anti-consumption (albeit good-intentioned) religious zealot, BUT, he knows his stuff about solar power and makes a good point about the gross ineffectiveness and hypocrisy of solar/wind. They will NEVER be cost-effective and they promote not reduce fossil fuels/CO2 = not “green” = hypocrisy.
I demand that Dr. Phil Jones and other climastrologists publishing papers while at CRU clearly state on EVERY PAPER THEY PUBLISH that the Climatic Research Unit has in the past / present received funding from the following:
Climate and Development Knowledge Network (“aims to help decision-makers in developing countries design and deliver climate compatible development.”),
Earth and Life Sciences Alliance (“addressing the challenges of a changing climate, the Alliance not only carries out fundamental research but also applies the findings to real world scenarios“),
Greenpeace International, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, WWF, EPA, British Petroleum, Shell, Sultanate of Oman.
Can I declare game, set and match? LOL.
As you canb see below Dr. Phil Jones did not declare that CRU has in the past received funding from the above ie the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, Earth and Life Sciences Alliance, Greenpiss, WWF et al.
Abstract
P. D. Jones1,*, T. Jonsson2 and D. Wheeler3
Extension to the North Atlantic oscillation using early instrumental pressure observations from Gibraltar and south-west Iceland
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0088%2819971115%2917:13%3C1433::AID-JOC203%3E3.0.CO;2-P/abstract
So what!
Just because Soon got some money from oil industry sources does not mean his conclusions are false!
The 2 biggest sources of heat on earth are: Sun and the Earth’s inner core. Commonsense demonstrates that any rise in temperature must come from there!
Alarmist scientists get money from the government because alarm sells. Politicians love it!
When you have a toothache you go to a dentist.
Back in 2004, on a short trip to Auckland New Zealand, I was able to get a close look at a strange vessel sitting right at the dock on one side of the Viaduct Harbor; home to the local Americas Cup and other sailing festivities.
This odd looking hydrocarbon fuelled boat (and CO2 disgorging as well), was purported to run on fat, for fuel.
Well not just any old fat; but liposuction fat; of which there is a bottomless supply; excuse me, make that a bottom full supply.
This amazing boat was going to set a round the world speed record by rocketing across the world’s ocean on bum fat.
Well in the end, I think they ended up running it on diesel; aka fossil fuel.
In any case, the project fizzled, and somehow Greenpeace acquired this vessel.
Probably some corporate donation to GP.
Well Just a coupla years ago now, Greenpeace used this monstrosity of a boat to pester some Japanese whale research scientists who were just trying to get some whale tissue samples for scientific research. Maybe to compare it to bum fat.
Somehow, things went pear shaped and the Obesity Burner ended up crashing into the whale sampler, or verse vicea, and the tub of lard , went to the bottom of the Pacific.
Luckily no crew members were harmed; that would have not been nice.
I have a good set of photos of that thing sitting at the dock, right next to an actual green machine; a former winner of the Whitbread round the world ocean race for sail boats, which is now known as the Volvo Ocean race.
The sail boat was actually sponsored by the makers of a free clean green renewable energy source, called (as I recall) Lion Breweries.
And yes I have actually sailed on that sail boat, while out on the harbor watching the then current Volvo Ocean Racers, who were in Port getting ready to go sail among the icebergs in the southern ocean.
I’ll be doing the same thing in a few weeks, when this years Volvo boats come into port on their way into history, all powered by the wind, and with no liposuction fat on board.
Yes Greenpeace have had their fun times all probably corporate funded in some way or other.
Here is an example of poor science:
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Soon shows a ‘solar radiation’ [the heavy black curve] and outdated version of TSI [Hoyt and Schatten’s old estimate]. Modern reconstructions are show by the red curves at the top. Soon should know [if he follows the modern debate] that his ‘solar radiation’ curve is false.
Leif,
It is good that this chart is posted by you, for it is sourced from the BEST project and the Washington Times. Because it is posted by you I will assume it is something attributed to Soon. Anyway, the much earlier paper of Soon and Baliunas is what internet searches refer to when controversy about Dr. Soon is searched for, and also the questioning of his funding began with that paper (I think).
The graph is by Soon back in 2013, discussed here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/26/dr-willie-soon-guest-comment-is-what-i-say-beyond-the-boundaries-of-reasonable-discussion/
lsvalgaard February 24, 2015 at 10:22 pm
As is the ‘big news’ peddled there
==================================
Probably. but if the predictions of you and your fellow solar scientists of a prolonged Dalton or Maunder-type minimum come to fruition, we will be able to observe what happens in detail Maybe, just maybe, after that, we won’t need to guess anymore.
Speaking of ‘poor science’, it isn’t solar radiation per se that matters.
It is variations in the mixture of particles and wavelengths relative to one another that affects atmospheric chemistry so as to change global cloudiness/albedo.
Those solar variations are not yet adequately represented by any charts or graphs that I am aware of.
Even so Leif’s chart still shows warmer periods roughly associated with high solar cycles and cooler periods with lower ones with the thermal effect being proportionate to the length of any run of high or low cycles.
So Leif do you think his “poor” science is as a result of his funding? Do you think a congressional committee can hold a hearing and then promptly investigate all the scientist who told it what it didn’t want to hear? Do you think that government funded scientist aren’t persuaded to give their sponsors what the want but privately funded scientists aren’t? Do you think Dr. Soon would receive government funding for his work, and if not what should he do? Retire and stop doing work that’s challenging the popular assumptions?
Leif, have you heard of DDT? Which was castigated by mainstream government scientists for 35 years as dangerous and harmful. With somewhere in the region of 70 million unnecessary deaths
Or, are you aware that Dt. Atkins of the “Atkins diet” was wrong about the relationship between carbohydrates for 35 years, but now isn’t. In the meantime the proposed consensus solution appears to have given rise to an obesity epidemic in the USA as predicted by Atkins and pooh hooed by to consensus
You take away the wonder of science if you say emphatically that people are wrong and you are right when the scientific evidence is based on models, and theories with huge gaps in the knowledge. Science never progresses by consensus and agreement it progresses by people like Dr. Soon, being wrong maybe, but challenging the smug acceptance of conventional wisdom.
lsvalgaard- A newer version doesn’t make it correct. These are reconstructions, not actual measurements and considering what has happened with other reconstructions, I’m tempted to go with the older versions Maybe Soon has better reasons. Best to ask about that before labeling it bad science.
Wang, Krivova? The data should be between 1365-1366 Wm-2? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282/pdf
Yes, there are several modern reconstructions, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
Here is also an example of poor science.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Here is another example of poor ‘science’.
Abstract
The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California
Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change……..Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from 16 global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00766.1
Robert B February 25, 2015 at 3:12 am
lsvalgaard- A newer version doesn’t make it correct. These are reconstructions, not actual measurements
The newer reconstructions are based on actual measurements. The Hoyt&Schatten reconstruction used by Soon is not based on ANY measurements of solar radiation, but on [dubious] guess work extrapolated from solar activity proxies: “These indices are (1) the equatorial solar rotation rate, (2) the sunspot structure, the decay rate of individual sunspots, and the number of sunspots without umbrae, and (3) the length and decay rate of the sunspot cycle.”, see their paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93JA01944/abstract
Now, now. Don’t feed the microsecond trolls, you two.
Folks are free to comment on what they like and, let’s be fair, the hysterical irrationality of the trolls makes more people question the “official line” than the failure of the climate to behave as prophesied. In fact, their ability to ridicule the warmist cause is so rotund that I’ve often wonder if these trolls might not the fabled “deniers” pretending to be the most maniacal wamists in order to ridicule them all.
@ur momisugly Chris
This is a skeptic site so naturally it would have a higher number of skeptic posts. Twit!
February 24, 2015 9:28 pm
“Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
Your first paragraph told us you have made up your mind on EVERYTHING!!!
NOW, with your leaders being shown to be the usual con artists, a lack of observations and science to back up your scams. you want to talk about SCIENCE??? YOU NEVER TALKED ABOUT SCIENCE!!! Y’all only lectured us on how stupid we were and how much smarter y’all were!!!
There was and is plenty of talk about Science on the sceptic sites which only drew your fan boys to deride and insult us.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Editor
February 24, 2015 9:29 pm
Interestingly, I find it surprisingly easy to converse perfectly civilly with scientists who stridently disagree with me. I had a very interesting discussion on Stoat that was quite productive. Also, with Dr. Venema in a thread Sou set up for us and others.
I find if you strictly avoid politics, you can learn a lot from these guys, and maybe you can even make ’em think twice.
Thanks. Only a Citizen Scientist. But I have very many brothers: Everyone, everyone, no matter what they believe, no matter what they have done — who has ever surveyed a surface station is my brother and comrade at arms. Also those who tried and failed.
As for the ones I have corresponded with, well, they have their objectives, I have mine, and I say so plain out. They need to know if the microsite issue is for real, and they actually want to. They are also interested in the problems with adjustment. Whereas I need to be fully and amply prepared for a very gnarly hairy eyeball during peer review. There will be questions. I’d just as soon have some answers.
The deeper I get into the data the more I sound like Mosh. (We are barking up different trees. Yet we are barking in the same direction.)
February 24, 2015 9:33 pm
Tom,
I do not see how our low emissions have much effect on the current warming period or the past cooling period or the warming before that – and so on. Insofar as Earth’s atmosphere was dangerously low of the plant food (CO2) not too long ago, I am pleased that it is now higher. I’d also like a smaller government and less waste. Whatever you mean by “green energy” (maybe solar and wind? – in truth, not very green) being a solution of something – well, so far, it is a nice wealth redistribution from the low and middle classes to the well-off. It cannot, and does not, provide utility scale electric power 24/7 for 365 days each year. That’s the sort of power my refrigerator, freezer, and heating and cooling systems need.
February 24, 2015 9:38 pm
We’re enjoying the weakest solar maximum in a hundred years that followed an extended minimum.
Atmospheric temperature has flatlined for the past 18 years, and EVERY ocean’s rate of SS temperature increase is declining while the Southern ocean’s is in freefall.
Notice a relationship here???
Celebrate every day within which Dr. Soon’s research continues!!!
Note how today’s temperatures are like they were 100 and 200 years ago [or NOT].
============
“Climate change: According to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth, Lake Superior may have warmed faster than its surrounding area.[20] Summer surface temperatures in the lake appeared to have increased by about 4.5 °F (2.5 °C) since 1979, compared with an approximately 2.7 °F (1.5 °C) increase in the surrounding average air temperature. The increase in the lake’s surface temperature may be related to the decreasing ice cover. Less winter ice cover allows more solar radiation to penetrate and warm the water. If trends continue, Lake Superior, which freezes over completely once every 20 years, could routinely be ice-free by 2040.[21] This would be a significant departure from historical records as, according to Hubert Lamb, Samuel Champlain reported ice along the shores of Lake Superior in June 1608”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Superior#Climate_change
Great Lakes are FINALLY ice free after record breaking seven months frozen
June 10, 2014
It has been a long, cold winter for much of America – but the Great Lakes have really suffered. Forecasters finally revealed today that all of the Great Lakes including Lake Superior are now ice free. It marks the end of a record breaking 7 month stretch where the lakes were covered in at least one ice cube, which is the longest period since satellite records began back in the 70’s.
*******************
Fall snow cover in Northern Hemisphere was most extensive on record, even with temperatures at high mark
December 4
In 46 years of records, more snow covered the Northern Hemisphere this fall than any other time. It is a very surprising result, especially when you consider temperatures have tracked warmest on record over the same period.
-WaPo
*******************
The constantly-revised globally-averaged “temperature” apparently has no meaningful relationship to the real world, so we should probably ignore it.
February 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Mr. Fuller, with regard to the first line of your essay,
I believe “current warming period” is an oxymoron since it is not currently warming. Also “our high emissions of CO2” is contrary since our emissions are incredibly small compared to natural emissions. Even “science explaining how” doesn’t work for me because science currently doesn’t explain the pause or hiatus we are in. I would just throw that whole first sentence out.
Beyond that, what really is a liberal progressive? Is that like “freedom for me through restriction of you”?
You could characterize it a warming period in that surface trend remains flat, but some heat is being convected into the oceans. This is typical of negative PDO periods.
Of course, the recent NASA study refutes the overall hypothesis that the “missing heat” is residing below 2000m. However, we are experiencing a flat surface trend in a cooling period.
I have to disagree. We have been neutral in the pacific, not cooling, basically La Nada. And the AMO has yet to really turn…
?w=520&h=395
You have pointed out that the surface stations have adjusted the Rural to the urban, and not properly accounted for the UHI affect. Perhaps it is better to go with the satellites, and they show us turning the corner and cooling.
February 24, 2015 10:14 pm
c’mon, u know it’s time to accept CAGW is real (sarc) when –
18 Feb: Citigroup: Citi Announces $100 Billion, 10-Year Commitment to Finance Sustainable Growth
New York – Citi announced today a landmark commitment to lend, invest and facilitate a total of $100 billion within the next 10 years to finance activities that reduce the impacts of climate change and create environmental solutions that benefit people and communities. Citi’s previous $50 billion goal was announced in 2007 and was met three years early in 2013.
With this $100 billion initiative, Citi will build on its leadership in renewable energy and energy efficiency financing to engage with clients to identify opportunities to finance greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and resource efficiency in other sectors, such as sustainable transportation…
http://www.citigroup.com/citi/news/2015/150218a.htm
how fascinating it would be to know what these “impressive” figures actually mean!
loans at interest to renewable companies might be at the top of the list!
Pat:- If your supposition about loans to renewable energy companies is correct ,and because the interest on the loans comes from the subsidies paid to suppliers of renewables , the Citigroup is profiting from green taxes on working families . Since these will only ever increase , especially after Paris 2015, it is a no-risk operation for Citigroup.
Truly bankers are the cleverest people on the planet.
February 24, 2015 10:17 pm
As a “lukewarmist” you should have your head examined to make sure the logic and reasoning side of your brain is working!
If you were a lay person I would be kinder to you and write civilly, but you are a scientist. A paid professional and regardless of who is paying you it’s money that you don’t deserve. I am intolerant of stupid people who are paid to pretend they are intelligent. Find another career, then I’ll be happy to take as much time as necessary to explain to you civilly why AGW is nothing but pseudo science.
As a “lukewarmist” you should have your head examined to make sure the logic and reasoning side of your brain is working!
Well technically I am a “lukewarmist” so I would have to take Mr Fuller’s side on that one. I describe myself as a skeptic though because I recognize that the debate has become polarized. On one side are people who want to take draconian measures because of the science, and on the other are people who believe the science doesn’t justify taking draconian measures. The only middle ground left belongs to the apathetic majority who prefer not to think about such things lest they have to make a decision for themselves.
‘On one side are people who want to take draconian measures because of the science, and on the other are people who believe the science doesn’t justify taking draconian measures’
Wrong!
On one side are people who want to take draconian measures and use ‘science’ as an excuse and on the other are people who know what the word science means.
You took the words out of my mouth.
What a bunch of crap.
There is noting wrong with our climate.
In fact the current weather pattern is very similar to the winter of 1934.
This means that nothing has changed at all.
What worries me is that the same clique pushing for a global CO2 tax are the same sociopaths rigging our economies and our financial system and promote a shooting war with a nuclear power to provide them with a scape goat when the house of cards collapses.
They’re traitors and criminals.
Still the sheeple keep quiet while their henchmen continue their attacks on human civilization because that’s what their “saving the planet” is all about.
http://green-agenda.com
As a “lukewarmist” you should have your head examined to make sure the logic and reasoning side of your brain is working!
Does that mean I should have my head examined?
If you were a lay person I would be kinder to you and write civilly, but you are a scientist.
Isn’t that all the more reason for kindness and civility?
February 24, 2015 10:20 pm
Tom,
first you assert –
“As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.”
“Climate change is real.”
and then you lament –
“Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
Tom, all sceptics ever wanted to do was debate the science. It has been the alarmists and lukewarmers standing in the way. Alarmists don’t want debate as they fear the critical flaws in the AGW hypothesis will be exposed. Lukewarmers don’t really want to debate the science because they don’t understand it.
You don’t understand radiative physics or fluid dynamics Tom, so when you say you “cheerfully accept the science”, you haven’t. You have just taken peoples word for it. You haven’t checked for yourself. This is why we are in this mess, too many have done as you have done and believed without evidence.
As a “liberal progressive”, you are soon going to be getting some very bad news. It’s not the “warming but less than we thought” soft landing you and yours are now praying for. It’s “AGW is a physical impossibility”.
I know you don’t understand the science but I will try to explain. Climastrologists made a critical mistake in the very foundation of the “basic physics” of their “settled science”. Climastrologists assumed the surface of our planet to be a near blackbody that could only heat to 255K for an average of 240 w/m2 of solar radiation if there were no radiative atmosphere. They then claimed our radiative atmosphere was raising that by 33K to our current 288K.
Little problem, 71% of our planet’s surface is ocean. The oceans are nowhere close to a near blackbody, instead they are an extreme SW selective surface. The sun alone could drive our oceans to 335 or beyond if it were not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
This is not small mistake. This is a critical error. It means the unproven radiative GHE hypothesis that is the foundation for AGW claims is totally and utterly wrong. Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the surface of our planet, not warming it.
Tom, this error is to huge to be hidden. No amount of political games can engineer a soft landing for any of the AGW fellow travellers. Words and politics cannot change the physics. The oceans are an extreme SW selective surface and that is that. Every activist, journalist and politician who promoted this sorry hoax is going to get their public face, metaphorically speaking, punched to custard. It’s plane tickets to Brazil time. As a “liberal progressive” you just have to cheerfully accept that.
Boy I hope you are right Konrad. It seems to me that it would not be the first time that a lot of scientist were wrong on a fundamental. All I know is that when I was working on top of an F111 in midday New Mexico (1972) the dark green surface was so hot it would burn your hands. I was afraid my shoe soles were going to melt.
February 24, 2015 10:32 pm
no GREATER CAUSE than this:
24 Feb: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans: MEPs vote for early EU carbon market fix
Analysts say the reforms could see EU carbon prices more than double by 2020, to between €17 and €35 per tonne. Member states must still back any reforms to the ETS, however…
With today’s vote, the European Parliament’s environment committee says the reserve should be established in 2018 and should be operating by 31 December 2018. This leaves ambiguity over the start date, which could come during 2018 or perhaps only at the start of 2019…
A final decision on reforms will need the backing of the European Commission and EU member state governments in a process known as trialogue negotiations. Member state agreement will be the hardest to secure…
Around 80 per cent of council decisions are taken by consensus. If this is not possible, then the decision is taken by qualified majority vote.
The voting system was changed last year. The changes reduce the voting power of smaller member states, while increasing it for the likes of the UK and Germany. However, until 2017, any member state can ask for the old voting rules to apply. Poland is likely to do this, as standard bearer for the opponents of ambitious EU ETS reform, and because it has reduced voting power under the new rules…
Sandbag would like the EU to cancel some suprlus allowances to “ramp up its climate offer”…
If the reforms backed today by the European Parliament were implemented, they would be expected to increase prices to between roughly €17 and €35 by 2020, according to differing forecasts from market analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon and ICIS Tschach Solutions.
Sandbag argues these price forecasts are too high because electricity consumption in the EU will continue to fall faster than expected while the increasing penetration of renewables will make life more difficult for gas- and coal-fired power stations, reducing their incentive to trade ETS allowances in advance…
DISCLOSURE: * Sandbag and Carbon Brief both receive funding from the European Climate Foundation
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/02/meps-vote-for-early-eu-carbon-market-fix/
if only the public understood this. they surely don’t understand the science.
February 24, 2015 10:37 pm
I believe that green energy can provide a partial solution to some of those problems.
What problems? You’ve placed your horse before your cart. There is no general agreement there are climate problems. There are modeled fantasies that hint at it but when rigorous science is applied the problems are identified as modeling errors.
There is general agreement that there are climate problems among the vast majority of the world’s governments, scientific organizations and large companies. There are also some skeptics, both in the climate sciences and among the general public. If by the words “general agreement” you mean everyone agreeing with AGW you are correct. But that is not true of governments, scientific organizations and large companies.
Seriously Chris!?
Are you saying that there are governments claiming there are ‘problems’, which they say they the need to ‘solve’ for the ‘public’ good, and which require them to increase their spending and regulation?
Whodathunkit!?
And equally seriously: Are you equating “climate problems” (in the beginning of your short comment) with some (unspecified) “AGW” towards its end!?
February 24, 2015 10:51 pm
I am curious as to what events Mr. Fuller sees as “climate change.” We all agree that the Earth’s climate changes over the centuries, and even moreso over the eons. Studying the geologic history of the Earth really opens one’s eyes to the reality of that change, but at the same time, realizing that it has gone from “snowball Earth” to “hothouse Earth” and back, many times, and without human influence, I have to wonder what anyone is seeing today that is any different from those natural cycles.
Sure, Boston had a lot of snow this winter. But it’s not unprecedented. You know how we know that? Because 20,000 years ago, Boston was under a kilometer of ice, which didn’t get there without there being lots of snow over a long period of time.
Now, I’ve been around this global warming thing since the beginning. Then, there was no talk about increased cold, or more snow — it was all about getting hotter and hotter, with more storms, and snow would be a thing of the past that our grandchildren would never see, and so forth. When none of that appeared to be happening, the goalposts were moved over to *stonger*, not more numerous, storms, and maybe *more* snow at times. In effect, any pattern of weather change could be blamed on it — but a hypothesis that predicts anything and can’t be proven false is not science
February 24, 2015 10:54 pm
I believe that green energy can provide a partial solution to some of those problems.
It occurs to me that coal might be the greenest energy source we have. You burn it and what you get is energy, particulates (captured these days at the smokestack)… and plant food.
I dare you to show any similar benefits to plants from solar or wind power. Green my ***
Chris
If particulates are captured at the smokestack, then why do India and China, with their high % of coal fired power, have the most polluted cities on earth?
Several reasons.
All basically come back to “Poverty kills. Energy-starved poverty kills quicker. ONLY RICH COUNTRIES with energy readily available can afford to control pollution.
One. A million small fires on inefficient, manually-fed coal, wood, paper, and dung fires for heat, cooking, light (dung much less so in the cities, but the region around the cities? Many hundreds of thousands of fires out there as well every day.)
No auto emissions controls nor cat converters being kept up-to-date, inspected, replaced.
Bad gas being used in what cat converters are present, so even newer cars get screwed up quickly.
BAD – very bad – controllers and particle filters on the hundreds of thousands of older burners and heaters and industrial shops around the area that cannot afford to update.
No or poorly-maintained particle filters on the older fossil plants still in use. If I add clean filters to 1 plant, but have 12 still burning the old way, will I see an improvement right away? No. Not until I shutdown or fix the old ones!
Get them out of poverty. Get cleaner, healthier people. Force artificially high energy prices? Kill them.
icouldnthelpit
Thankyou for that exposition. I still see your complete agreement with the article but no “remark” except for your addition of a comment about the behaviour of your left eyebrow.
Perhaps in future when you want to comment on an article that you completely agree then you could be more clear by merely thanking its author for the article.
Richard
The purpose of the post was to delve into the willingness of people like you to ignore the logs in their own eyes while whining about motes in the eyes of others.
It also dealt with the eagerness of your side to ignore the science and attack those who disagree with you on anything else.
Thank you for being willing to be the poster child for such nonsense.
icouldnthelpit
In this sub-thread you have written
Richard. I don’t know why you say I completely agree with the article and I’m not entirely sure that I want to know.
and in reply to Bob Boder saying
icouldnthelpit
So you disagree with Soon and think he should be attacked, I got it. Luckily everyone knows your a troll and could careless what you think.
you replied
Bob. No, I didn’t say that either. For the record I lean toward the opinion that Soon shouldn’t be attacked.
So, you say you don’t “completely agree with the article” and suggest you do “disagree with Soon”.
Perhaps it is time for you to plainly state what you do think of the article because – at present – your wriggling is making you a laughing stock.
Richard
February 25, 2015 12:30 am
There is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’ in earth’s atmosphere. The closest effect to a ‘greenhouse’ anyone can observe is heavy cloud cover. The cloud can reduce the rate of cooling of the surface because of NET back radiation from the bottom of the cloud layer which is slightly cooler that the surface. If the sun is shining above the cloud everyone can feel it is not warming up below the cloud.
Please post any link to the science that explains how ‘greenhouse gases’ raise the temperature of the earth by 33 degrees.
Richard,
you are correct. There is no net atmospheric radiative GHE raising surface temperatures from 255K by 33K. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling. 71% of the surface of our planet is ocean, an extreme UV/SW/IR selective surface. Incident solar radiation alone would drive it to 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
But you are only partially correct with this –
“The cloud can reduce the rate of cooling of the surface”
Both water vapour and especially condescended water (cloud, the strongest emitter of LWIR in the atmosphere) can reduce surface cooling rates at night, but only over land. Land only accounts for 21% of our ocean planet’s surface. Some wet vegetated areas of this would experience no measurable effect. And over the oceans? Empirical experiment consistently shows that incident LWIR emitted from the atmosphere has no effect on the cooling rate of the oceans.
How on earth did the inane climastrologists come up with that utterly incorrect 255 K figure for “surface without radiative atmosphere” on our ocean planet? They used the Stefan-Boltzmann equation! It doesn’t work for solar illuminated water. It can not possibly work for 71% of our planets surface!
Seriously, you cannot use the S-B calc for materials that are SW transparent, LWIR opaque that are being intermittently SW illuminated. To claim otherwise you would have to be completely scientifically illiterate or a Climastrologist.
I have checked this with multiple empirical experiments. My claim – “97% of climastrologists are assclowns” is scientifically correct, and unassailable. 😉
Richard 12:30am – MikeB’s 1:01am link works thru to correct conclusions you asked about based on/traceable to the scientific method as laid out by Dr. Feynman. The ref.s I’ve included below also do so. The 3:33am comment does not demonstrate using the scientific method, has conclusions based only on political science as discussed in top post. Willis’ recent post I’ve added shows that S-B is reasonably applicable to calculate sea surface temperature (SST) from satellite radiometer data because oceans test out both as near black body surface and selective surface as demonstrated by numerous scientific method testing. Comment at 3:33am experiments all corroborate those tests. Top post quote works:
“Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
——-
Ref. 1: http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
Ref.s 2: Bohren, C. 1985, 1998, 2006 Chapter 1, p. 33
Ref. 3: Willis E.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/21/the-tao-calculated-surface-datasets/
February 25, 2015 12:46 am
…As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period….
That’s not how science is done. That’s laying yourself open to being conned. Because science is about scepticism and examining the evidence for an assertion critically…
…As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today. …
That’s not being a good citizen. That’s laying yourself open to being enslaved. Because being a good citizen is about holding governments to account and checking that each government power really is essential and properly administered…
He’s demonstrated that he isn’t a great thinker. After 100 years of evidence, anyone who believes that govt is capable of solving the pressing problems of any era, just isn’t paying attention.
Heck, he even believes that “renewables” are capable of supplying more than a trivial fraction of our energy needs.
February 25, 2015 12:46 am
“Because none of this is about science. It is about controlling the levers of power, making sure the right message is fed through the media channels and that funding for the right issues is uninterrupted.” Unfortunately a great deal of this is actually about hypocrisy, control of the lumpen proletariat and central command and control of resources by the “worthy and wise” (in their view).
But as a Lukewarmer I see flaws in what has become a Great Cause–to me it seems to often be an excuse for NGOs to ask the public for more money, for politicians to gain easy support and to replace the stock prayer from beauty pageant contestants for world peace.
Climate change is real. The political struggle over acknowledging the scope and impacts is full of unreality.
When a political cause gains traction among those in power, a curious thing happens. Conventional ideas about right and wrong slip in priority and winning becomes so important that criminal activity and sexual impropriety become forgivable by those in service to a Cause.
Peter Gleick stole documents and forged another to attack his political opponents. Despite the gravity of this crime he was welcomed back into the fold of those promoting worst-case scenarios about the impacts of climate change as if he were a hero, not a criminal. This is not unusual in political movements. The cause becomes more important.
Al Gore was one of the first who promoted global warming as an imminent threat to human safety. His sybaritic lifestyle was evident from the first–private planes, living in a mansion, conspicuous consumption. None of that was sufficient to cause the Cause to disavow him. It still is unclear whether it was his arrest for pressuring a masseuse for sex or his sale of his television channel to a fossil fuel organization was the cause of his fall from grace–but that fall was apparently temporary, as he still speaks on global warming before green groups the world over. The rules don’t apply.
And now it is the turn of Rajendra Pachauri. Women are now speaking of a decade-long pattern of sexual harassment. Even before this revelation, Pachauri was involved in misconduct, ranging from suppressing dissent to hiding the income from his foundation. He showed incredibly poor judgment in publishing a bodice ripper of a novel while head of an organization that had been criticized by the IAC–with many of those criticisms calling into question his leadership. But it doesn’t matter. He was a champion of the Cause.
Currently, some bloggers and mainstream media sources are reviving decade-long questions about the funding of a scientist named Willie Soon, that he received funding from fossil fuel sources.
It doesn’t matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST’s Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t matter that this information is old.
What matters for the Cause is that headlines of supposed misbehavior hit the news at the same time as Pachauri’s disgrace.
Because none of this is about science. It is about controlling the levers of power, making sure the right message is fed through the media channels and that funding for the right issues is uninterrupted.
Oh for the days when we talked about science.