The letter below from Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona speaks to the worst sort of witch hunt tactics that we’ve seen yet. I suspect that pulling on these threads will backfire on Grijalva, as this will motivate a lot of people to join the fight against this sort of “climate McCarthyism” The letter is reproduced in full below, with the original PDF also available. It’s like he’s got Mann’s #kochmachine delusions ideas.
Feb. 24, 2015
L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Dear President Reif:
As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I have a constitutional duty to protect the public lands, waters and resources of the United States and ensure that taxpayers are able to enjoy them. I write today because of concerns raised in a recent New York Times report and documents I have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research. Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.
As you may have heard, the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some of which formed the basis of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Kansas State Legislature’s House Energy and Environment Committee — funding that was not disclosed at the time. Exxon Mobil, in response to an inquiry from the House Science Committee, may have provided false or misleading information on its funding for Dr. Soon’s work. Southern Services Company funded Dr. Soon’s authorship of several published climate studies; Dr. Soon did not disclose this funding to many of those journals’ publishers or editors.
If true, these may not be isolated incidents. Professor Richard Lindzen at your Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences has testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on climate change.(1) He has described the scientific community’s concerns as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”(2). In 2009 he spoke at a conference held by the Heartland Institute,(3) a group funded in part by Altria and by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax.(4)
I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution’s name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law. Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.
My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships. Please respond to the following questions and requests for documents. Please ensure your response is in a searchable electronic format and that your reply quotes each question or request followed by the appropriate response. These inquiries refer to activities conducted between Jan. 1,2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.
1. What is MIT’s policy on employee financial disclosure? Please provide a full copy of all applicable policies, including but not limited to those applying to Prof. Lindzen.
2. For those instances already mentioned and others that apply, please provide:
a. all drafts of Prof. Lindzen’s testimony before any government body or agency or that which, to your knowledge, he helped prepare for others;
b. communications regarding testimony preparation.
3. Please provide information on Prof. Lindzen’s sources of external funding. “External funding” refers to consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Lindzen that did not originate from the institution itself Please include:
a. The source of funding;
b. The amount of funding;
c. The reason for receiving the funding;
d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant;
e. Communications regarding the funding.
4. Please provide all financial disclosure forms filed by Prof Lindzen in which MIT is listed as his professional affiliation, even if it is only stated for purposes of identification.
5. Please provide Prof Lindzen’s total annual compensation for each year covered here. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please provide a full response no later than March 16, 2015. Direct questions to Vic Edgerton at vedgerton@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6065.
Very respectfully,
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1 — http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/profess-richard-lindzens-congressional-testimony/
2 — http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/1k1.01.htm1
3 — http://heart1and.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.htm1
4 —http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/
The original pdf is here: Grijalva-Richard Lindzen MIT_0
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK warm-mongers: You show us yours – and we’ll show you ours.
Um, no. “Theirs” are largely funded by the taxpaying public, “ours” are not. Big difference.
Mark
They get a lot of money from oil companies.
Indeed. There is “BigOil” money funding a lot of different types of research, mostly in the pockets of mainstream climate science. This is well known and easy to verify by anyone.
The bottom-line issue is the definition of “conflict of interest”. You see, since “BigOil” has been deemed to be evil by default, you can take its money as long as your research says “BigOil is evil”. For those with this world view, there is only a conflict of interest when your research does not say “BigOil is evil” because, in this case, it can only mean that it was bought to say that.
But none of this will matter to Grijalva. His is the behavior of an unprincipled person. His aim is to harass and intimidate not to elicit any useful information. And, most likely, it is also part of the strategy to divert attention from the Pachauri scandal.
Oil companies cave on political issues long before the likes of Rep. Grijalva can trot them out for committee hearings.
Why in the world should we regard “funded by the taxpaying public” as somehow pristine? Fear-mongering works just dandy to produce public money grants. Political correctness is rampant in the allocation of that money.
In the 1960s many of our generals warned of a “missile gap” with the Soviet Union. Many of these government experts, “funded by the taxpaying public”, insisted that they needed much, much bigger budgets and a lot more power, to meet the terrible threat.
Do you suppose the liberals of that day acceded to the generals wishes, since the generals “were funded by the taxpaying public” and therefore beyond all possible reproach, or do you think those liberals spotted a conflict of interest in all of the doom-mongering?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.
H. L. Mencken
There is your taxpayer funding.
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona will get answers and insights that will embarrass him. He is new to the game.
Fossil fuel funded climate change and green bodies (Koch and Exxon included).
REVELATION!
There are also honoraria (speaking fees) and cash awards (e.g., the annual $100,000 award from the Heinz foundation, which Hansen has won) from green groups, plus possible payments for serving as advisors to them, or as board members, or from having their articles reprinted in green newsletters. Their side gets more of this sort of thing than our side does. So I agree with the comment that both sides should be asked to disclose.
Brute describes projection from the Warmists, they get funding from BigOil™, so they assume everyone else is.
And data from things largely funded by the taxpaying public should be available to the public, at least through a FOIA request. While data funded by industry belongs to the industry (and/or the researcher depending on the funding agreement) and neither the public or the government has any right to request it.
Here are 3 graphs. After BILLIONS of US Dollars in funding you get the last graph. Raúl M. Grijalva should launch another crusade against the waste of public funds on garbage ‘science’.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
I think your US numbers are low:
FY2012 19,791 USD (millions)
FY2013 22,195
FY2014 21,408
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
Lest we forget.
26 Feb. 2015
•R K Pachauri gets protection from arrest till March 28
•Rajendra Pachauri: India bail for ex-UN climate chief
•Pachauri told to stay away from TERI after harassment claim
Where’s Glieck?
My last link has an error. Here is the correct url.
[Reuters]
Pachauri told to stay away from TERI after harassment claim
I’m all for having total financial transparency,…lets start with ‘ranking member’ (always thought that was a hobby ), Raúl Grijalva, shake him down & see what issues.
I have better than 95% confidence that 97% of politicians have had murky dealings in the past, so throw out every one who’s done a dodgy deal in the last 25yrs, that’ll clear the chamber.
He receives a lot of funding from outside of his district and from outside the state:
http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/268-ral-m-grijalva
From here: http://keywiki.org/Ra%C3%BAl_Grijalva
“Raul M.Grijalva is a Communist Party USA affiliated Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the 3rd district of Arizona.
He is a co-chair on the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”
http://keywiki.org/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
“Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders-the openly socialist then Congressman from Vermont, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical Washington DC based “think tank” Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
Many members were and continue to be linked to DSA and/or the Communist Party USA, IPS or other radical organizations.
From small beginnings the CPC has grown to embrace more than 80 members of Congress and three in the Senate – Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders and Tom Udall”, (in 2010, 65 Congress plus Bernie Sanders currently)
Let me answer for them:
Dear Representative Grijalva,
No.
We will participate in no such anti-intellectual intimidation.
Thank you,
Every Citizen
So Just what means “Ranking member.” ?
Does this mean he’s the best the Democrats could come up with ?
I think I would ask for a complete disclosure of all donors and all funding for his most recent election campaign ; in fact for all of his election campaigns so we can all see just who all bought and paid for his influence.
I notice he doesn’t even have the guts to disclose exactly which political party he represents.
And for the record; I care not a jot which political party he represents. That’s fine with me. But I do think we have a right to know.
It is almost universally true that Republican Senators and Representatives, are always called out by political party affiliation, by the so called news media, but Democrats never are. So it’s on that basis that I deduce that he is a Democrat. And I have no problem with the people of Arizona, and least in some district there selecting him as their champion. That is the American way.
But we do have a right to know. and also to inquire as to his scientific credentials to be pre-supposing that Soon’s and Lindzen’s testimonies to any congressional committees for any reason, are not scientifically accurate.
Frankly, I think Rank Member Grijalva, has helped the US Congress do a very piss poor job of stewardship of the Nation’s Natural resources. Excuse me, I see a slip; that is Ranking Member Grijalva; sorry about that.
Now come to think of it.
Why on earth would a Congressional Committee on United States Natural Resources, have any interest whatsoever in fossil deposits that apparently he and his like, regard as planetary poisons.
Well at least the People of Arizona can now see who is looking out for their interests.
This is a mudslingers mudslinger.
G
The above is simply a personal opinion of this author and was not funded in any way by any other person place or thing.
But specifically this author has never to his knowledge received any sort of funding or granting or any other kind of remuneration, real or imaginary, from ANY Natural Resource related enterprise or exploiting operation. Nor has any person related to this author ever received any such remuneration from such sources.
I just have a natural aversion to power mad bullies.
And just who the hell is Vic Edgerton, and precisely which Region of US citizenry elected him to what Public Office, and for what reason would anybody communicate anything to him, or was he in fact elected by anybody to any public office of the US Government ??
So Just what means “Ranking member.” ?
It means he is the minority party member who has served on the committee for the longest amount of time.
rank
(răngk)
adj. rank·er, rank·est
3. Strong and offensive in odor or flavor:
Just FYI – Grijalva’s funding comes from drug cartels, pedophile sex slave smugglers, and the Reconquista Movements.
Which is why you hear NOTHING from him about the severe environmental damage done by the smuggling operations, the criminal gangs, or the horrible environmental record of Mexico.
Reality Observer – can you evidence that? I’d never heard of this unpleasant-sounding individual until this diversionary tactic blew up.
“Ranking member” … does that mean he is a big d1ck?
When you’re the ‘Ranking Member’ you have to have a really good spell-checker.
Judith Curry wrote “I think Grijalva has made a really big mistake in doing this. I am wondering on what authority Grijalva is demanding this information? He is ranking minority member of a committee before which I have never testified.”
From – https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00025284&cycle=Career
CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)
Raul M. Grijalva
Top 5 Contributors, 2001 – 2014
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
National Education Assn $70,000 $0 $70,000
Communications Workers of America $66,000 $1,000 $65,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $64,050 $550 $63,500
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $63,000 $0 $63,000
American Assn for Justice $59,000 $0 $59,000
…view more data
Top 5 Industries, 2001 – 2014
Industry Total Indivs PACs
Public Sector Unions $329,745 $1,745 $328,000
Industrial Unions $275,000 $1,000 $274,000
Lawyers/Law Firms $257,557 $186,308 $71,249
Transportation Unions $253,950 $750 $253,200
Casinos/Gambling $238,335 $230,330 $8,005
So mostly a paid up union thug.
Reality Observer – I thought he was the one in the movie with the line “Bajges? We dont nead no stinkn bajges!”
Thanks for saving me the time to make these points. The Representative is funded by Leftist groups, many of whom claim “not for profit” status and use untaxed money to fund lobbying and campaign contributions.
26 Feb: UPI: Brooks Hays: Democrats instigate climate funding probe, get pushback
Several members of Congress have begun sending letters to universities, energy companies and trade associations, seeking information about funding to scientists who have been critical of climate change.
Critics have been quick to label the effort a “witch hunt,” but those responsible say the outreach is a logical response to revelations that one of the country’s leading climate skeptics had been receiving funding from major players in the energy industry…
Letters were sent to 100 companies and organizations signed by Sens. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., while additional letters were mailed to universities signed by Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz…
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/02/26/Democrats-instigate-climate-funding-probe-get-pushback/6901424960569/
Well we might have guessed that Check Bouncing Senator Mrs. Boxer would be in on this conspiracy.
So when will she disclose her funding from fossil deposit exploiting enterprises ??
george e. smith
Senator Boxer (democrat, CA – naturally) has a husband.
Senator Boxer’s husband is the primary winner of the Big Government’s 1.5+ billion dollar high-speed train contract inside California (from nowhere to nowhere else), a high-speed train advertised solely on the need to reduce CO2 emissions (by private airplane passengers flying commercial airlines) by forcing them from private transportation into federal passengers on federal/state high speed trains.
The primary losers of that contract to Senator Boxer’s husband are the national and state taxpayers.
High speed train is great (when it works correctly, and is properly maintained and cleaned-up, which it doesn’t always in France), but it isn’t really a fossil carbon saver: yes, the train runs on electricity, and yes you can produce electricity with trivial carbon content. But the railway is a very expensive, and building it requires lots of fossil carbon.
OTOH airplanes don’t need huge infrastructure, and they get more and more efficient with technological progress. Fast railways building doesn’t get more energy efficient with technological progress; a fast railway will always cost much more than a normal one due to tiny tolerances.
Also rail maintenance is very costly. This became more obvious when the train operator and the rail operator were separated, the train operator had to pay the rail operator for every train, and the rail operator was losing money for every train as even the maintenance cost wasn’t paid for (not accounting for the huge investment debt).
The conclusion in France is that fast railways often cost way too much. This is not a left/right, pro-business/anti-business, progressives/conservative issue, it’s a simple “we realise now we spent too much” issue, it’s shared by pretty much everybody. (Of course consensus doesn’t imply correct.)
Only the most used lines can pay for itself and make a benefit. We are talking very heavy traffic here.
Or maybe the French rail operators are just hugely inefficients. (But then, public infrastructure building in the US is known to be very inefficient even by French public administration standards.)
simple-touriste
Thanks. Yes.
[In a word]
In the UK, the heaviest used lines are commuter lines into London. (Surprise!)
My line has passengers standing on the 0703. Yet this line has quite light usage 1030-1530.
The commuters subsidise the day-time running.
And fair enough one of them – me – says.
Ah – but trains do need a lot of line and signalling maintenance – usually overnight [so ‘overtime rates’].
And separating the train operating companies – here the ‘railcos’ – from the organisation that ‘does’ the track – here Notwork Rail – or Network Fail – I get confused – hasn’t been a smashing success.
Privatisation has led to much needed investment, although I think the so-called HS2 will be a white elephant of astonishing proportions, when small(-ish) tweaks will deliver a third of the time savings at about a twentieth of the cost.
Now privatisation on seven year contracts [when planning permission for a junction box can take a third of that, before a single spade is wielded in anger] may not be ideal. I think.
Auto
Dear Raul, please take all the rope you need. It is much appreciated.
Doug S
Vallejo, Ca.
Hear, hear – this either as it appears on the surface, a useless scare -rmongering witch hunt OR a clever ploy to flush out just who pays the rogues and vandals salaries to keep the nonsense of CAGW active. also don’t overlook anyone who is on a taxpayers funded junket…
The whole funding of Soon is OLD. It is re-hashed time and time again when gullible fools like the Dem representative get manipulated. Now they attack Lindzen, the atmospheric scientist at MIT who knows nothing about climate, unlike the Dem rep. Raul is making a fool of himself in front of the 18 years of surface temperature standstill.
Imagine what would happen if Republicans went after scientists funded by George Soros, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Richard Branson…
Steyer is currently wrapped in the Gov. John Kitzhaber corruption investigation.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/13/feds-subpoena-gov-john-kitzhabers-records/
“Imagine what would happen if Republicans went after scientists funded by George Soros, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Richard Branson…”
Yes, it’s not good. This political bullying should be rejected.
Here is the letter that Chairman Joe Barton wrote to each of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Asking for details of funding, and a good deal more. He of course was writing from the majority, and could follow up with subpoenas.
There is a difference between looking for questionable scientific work, as shown in the chairman letter for Mann el al, where scientists have become advocates (such as Mann), who receive government funding and are subject to oversight for work products produced versus choosing to suggest that such work and opinions are a result of outside funding based merely on a comment before Congress, which is the catalyst for Rep Grijalva.
Government has the authority to audit itself and it should. Any scientist that does work for the Government whose research is used for policy decisions should be subjected to review, including the conclusions of their work, if there is evidence of impropriety.
What Grijalva is doing is suggesting that testimony before Congress from scientists who make statements that disagree with the policy narrative are being influenced from corporate interests. Steyer, Soros, Gates, Branson and other liberal individuals are funding research through their various non-profits that support their view. Interestingly, Penn State (for which Mann is a professor) ALSO receives funding from corporate interests, including, oil companies. How much of that goes to Climate Science, I have no idea, but oil companies have been funding climate science, and there are proponents on both sides.
While I agree that scientists should not be subject of witch hunts, there is a difference between what happened with Mann than what is happening now.
Nick! You’ve finally come awake, now that the shoe is on the other foot.
The Confirmation Bias is strong with this one.
From Chairman Barton’s letter to Mann: “For example, according to the January 2005 Energy & Environment, such information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.”
It seems it’s not a conflict of interest, but the integrity of the research process.
Like everyone else is going to mention…Mann, Bradley and Hughes were paid with taxpayer dollars. Why is this fact always overlooked by some people?
“but the integrity of the research process”
I’m sure Grijalva would say that undisclosed funding from commercial interests reflects on the integrity of the research process.
“Any scientist that does work for the Government whose research is used for policy decisions should be subjected to review”
Likewise, G would say that these are scientists working for the Government (as much as MBH were) whose research was the basis of testimony to Congress
“Nick! You’ve finally come awake, now that the shoe is on the other foot.”
I can assure you that I opposed the actions of Chairman Barton, wielding full majority powers including subpoena, as I do this exercise.
I’m sure Grijalva would say that undisclosed funding from commercial interests reflects on the integrity of the research process.
How? If the conclusions can’t be challenged, where research dollars come from automatically make that research null? Be careful how you answer.
MJ,
“If the conclusions can’t be challenged, where research dollars come from automatically make that research null?”
You are making very fine distinctions. Perhaps you’d like to set out your rules for when Congress should interrogate scientists directly and when not. For my part, I don’t think they should at all. Congress can’t and shouldn’t try to police either data exchange between scientists nor CoI disclosure.
The MBH conclusions certainly were challenged.
Nick Stokes
February 26, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Perhaps you’d like to set out your rules for when Congress should interrogate scientists directly and when not. For my part, I don’t think they should at all. Congress can’t and shouldn’t try to police either data exchange between scientists nor CoI disclosure.
Nick, if the researchers are using public funds then Congress has every right to ‘interrogate’ them, that is one of the strings attached to taking public funding, another string is that you do not own any of the research, the research the notes the data gathered even the pen you used and the desk you sit at if bought with government money are owned by the government.
This is totally different to asking questions that imply impropriety of someone whose research was not funded by the government. Especially, when not only the results of the research but the raw data are available – even if the Ranking Member could not understand it.
“This is totally different to asking questions that imply impropriety of someone whose research was not funded by the government.”
In what way was Lindzen (or Curry, Pielke etc) less funded by the government than Mann?
The first four questions in the Barton letter concern sources of funding, which ordinarily I would consider unreasonable and irrelevant, all other things equal. But all other things were not equal at the time. Given the jaw-dropping non-disclosure and evasion tactics exhibited by the Team it is quite understandable that Barton would want to nail down under the threat of subpoena exactly what was federally funded and what was not. It was the only way to get a straight answer.
The next three questions could not possibly be more fair and relevant: show us the data and the calculation methodologies. Not only are these question entirely legitimate, they are required to be answered for the normal scientific processes of verification and replication.
The final question, again, perfectly fair under the circumstances, was attempting to shed some light on the humongous conflict of interest held by Mann and others in passing judgement on their own papers vis-a-vis others for IPCC reports.
Try another angle. Or better still, show us how the confidence intervals in MBH98/99 were calculated.
“But all other things were not equal at the time.”
The time was 2005.
Nick Stokes,
You argue incessantly.
Are you fixated on your Belief in MMGW?
Or are you compensated in any way to comment?
Because you’re not convincing anyone who was not already a fellow True Believer. So what do you get out of your non-stop commentary?
I knew I shouldn’t have got involved in this.
Let’s try again. What problem do you have with this question being asked of M, B, and H?
“According to The Wall Street Journal, you have declined to release the exact computer code you used to generate your results. (a) Is this correct? (b) What policy on sharing research and methods do you follow? (c) What is the source of that policy? (d) Provide this exact computer code used to generate your results.”
” What problem do you have with this question being asked of M, B, and H?”
So which academics get hauled before Congress with a demand to produce their computer code from a paper seven years earlier? In fact, despite local tub-thumping, producing scientific code is very rarely demanded, and for good reason. A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.
Nick Stokes
You write
Say what!?
You assert that failure to retain a copy of unaltered code used to provide published work is a “practical” reason for not providing the code!!!
NO! NO! NO!
It is incompetence to fail to retain the unaltered code or – at very least – to record detailed and dated information on all subsequent alterations to the code.
Clearly, excluding Anglo Saxon expletives, there are no words capable of describing what passes for being “science” when it is conducted by climatologists.
Richard
Nick Stokes wrote: ” A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.”
Very, very, weak Nick, any professional uses a source code control system with full history. The fact the climate science apparently does not is a huge red flag, the US Government is spending $21-$22 Billion dollars a year based upon this unprofessional science.
Shouldn’t the standards be higher?
Nick there is a difference between Barton and Rep. Raul M. Grijalva. Barton was dealing with the issues arising out of the MBH papers which had been challenged by McIntyre and McKitrick and whose authors had, in defiance of all scientific principles, refused to co-operate with their critics. The Hockey Stick graph had, and still does, influenced policy decisions taken by the US government, it was therefore pertinent for the government try to clarify this issue.
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva is fishing and has no specific reason for doing so, other than he doesn’t agree with what the scientists said in evidence to congress – not even his committee in some cases.
“It is incompetence to fail to retain the unaltered code…” etc
Well, in fact he did produce code. But principles are lightly held here. When Grijalva sends demanding letters to Lindzen et al it’s a witch hunt, McCarthyism etc. And I agree that it is a very bad principle, though here backed with very little power.
But then we come to Mann/Barton. On no, then McCarthyism is OK, because MM dragged his feet in supplying code to McIntyre. Or didn’t use a proper source control. Or used inferior PCA. Or just because he’s Mann.
It’s not OK.
Nick Stokes,
It appears that you have not even read the comments above your last post. Either that, or they whizzed right over your head.
There is a major distinction between Mann’s shenanigans, and the attacks on Dr. Soon. Sorry you can’t understand the difference. Everyone else can.
“There is a major distinction between Mann’s shenanigans, and the attacks on Dr. Soon. Sorry you can’t understand the difference. “
I think you are not reading. This discussion is not about the attacks on Dr Soon. It is about congressional letters of demand (“Mccarthyism”) – now to Lindzen et al, and earlier to MBH.
“A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.”
You’re suggesting they don’t use source control? That alone is bad enough practice to make me question their code…
Well why dont they then? Wont this set a precedent?
Nick,
Curry & Lindzen have been attacked for funding from fossil fuel interests. I don’t know if they have gotten more or less from such sources than Mann, but all are indeed primarily taxpayer-funded.
I think full financial disclosure would be good. Our side would be less guilty on balance, even though there would be some ‘splaining to do. Our side should use judo–use the opponent’s impetus against him. I.e., go along with these requests, then demand that the other side do likewise.
I think these politicians have bought into the simplistic “shills for evil polluters” meme the greenies have been pushing. They haven’t really got below the superficial, sloganeering level of the debate.
Not to mention investigating the CIA operatives fronting as ‘research scientists’ who miraculously get promoted very very rapidly to very very senior positions.
Amazing how plagiarism by an undergraduate gets them thrown out of college, but sophisticated industrial-scale electronic hacking gets you promoted to the most senior research positions in the land………
From the letter:
“Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.”
This man has no desire to understand climate, climate change or anything else that may cast doubt on the party line.
It’s not “McCarthyism”. McCarthy was right about far Left infiltrators into American government and society. The Anthropogenic Global Warming enterprise is merely a revenue generation/redistribution scheme masquerading as an energy reform policy.
It’s identical to the current scapegoating and character assassination of Putin in his attempt to restore the elected government in Ukraine that was overthrown by US-backed Nazis.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article182426.html
I hope you are otherwise OK.
Another missing /sarc tag. Sigh.
Hear hear!
Have a look at the EU websites giving details of the money shelled out to fund “civil society” in Ukraine. Hundreds of millions of Euros. The US through the CIA has paid billions of dollars.
Cameron has spoken of an EU that stretches “from the Atlantic to the Urals.”
MH17? Anyone heard the recordings of conversations between the flight and ATC? Anyone found evidence of BUK debris with the aircraft debris? Anyone able to explain why both sides of the aircraft were hit? The recorders with flight and voice details were apparently recovered intact, and sent to Farnborough. Much on TV news on the contents of same?
This is not a f****** joke. My children attend the same school as did two of the victims.
So as a response to Curious George, “Foxtrot Oscar.”
McCarthy may have been right about “far Left infiltrators” having established themselves in American government and society but the point is he began seeing a Commie under every bed and making most of his accusations against honest Americans. He began using his accusations as a political weapon with the sole goal of advancing his own career. Truth became irrelevant to him and publicity became “everything”. He thought destroying the lives of innocent individuals was a good way to win the presidency. McCarthy was 5% right and 95% wrong. He became a real danger to democracy. He used the power of government in witch hunts whose sole purpose was personal advancement. And “Tailgunner” Joe turned out to be both a liar and a drunk.
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva most definitely is interested in using the power of government to silence dissent. His letter is reminiscent of the letters that McCarthy sent out. (One hopes the university tells him to get a subpoena because without it they need not reply — and Grijalva has no chance of getting one.)
Grijalva will never rise any higher in government than he is now but instead wishes to expand the powers of government — thereby making himself more powerful.
Limited government has only so much “power” to share around. A big government has much more power and thus makes the individuals in it more powerful. By expanding government you can make yourself more powerful. Socialist (and Communist) politicians are the worst kind of people — people interested in gaining more and more power — for themselves (personal wealth is a sideline) — and they do this by expanding government. (Have you ever heard a socialist of a communist declare that the government needs less power? That would diminish their own power.)
Power hungry — that is what defines both McCarthy and Grijalva.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene, +1. I’m rather disturbed by the very many posts that have appeared here in the past week suggesting McCarthy was “right”. I say again, he most definitely was not. He was extremely dangerous to democracy. Here in England, we’re often reminded that the US is a strong believer in democracy. If that is so, then you best consign McCarthy to the same department where you would locate various despots. McCarthy made accusations without foundation and, in that sense, was most surely dangerous to society. He believed the American government offices were soaked with communists. This simply was NOT so. There were some, that is all, some. And let’s not forget his anti-homosexuality either. He was a terrible US citizen, and not worthy of supportive comments on here by a few people. To those people here, please go and read up on him. It’s almost (but not) ironic that people on here berate those making accusations against Soon and Lindzen, but fail to see it IS McCarthyism! That word should be speaking volumes to them. I come here to be among like-minded (on climate issues), and would have to re-evaluate that if I believed that there are many on here who have fascists leanings. [I’m to the Right myself, in British politics, but strongly believe in democracy. I abhor fascism, and communism is just an unworkable idea.]
TGOBJC
+ several million.
Ghost,
I agree with much of your comment. But I think you overstepped when you wrote:
McCarthy made accusations without foundation…
When the Berlin Wall came down a lot of old Soviet intellignce was disseminated, such as the Venona files. It showed conclusively that the Soviets had deliberately infiltrated the U.S. State Department and other government departments with Soviet spies and ‘fellow travelers’.
The worrisome thing is that they are doing much more now, and with our feckless President, no one is stopping them. And don’t get me started on the Chinese…
Making accusations without proper evidence is exactly what McCarthy did. He assumed. He was wrong. Of course there were in-roads made by the Soviets into American government. But they made them everywhere – Britain being no exception. They sowed discord within the UK’s union movement, and (ironically) brought about Margaret Thatcher’s election. They infiltrated governments all over the world, as the CIA have done. The point is, it wasn’t as bad as he tried to make the American public believe. That is the crucial part. The US was infected no worse than any other.
Chinese? Two years ago I refused to buy a Lenovo laptop because a friend of mine suggested that there was a rumour circulating among British Intelligence that they were all infected with a piece of software that could relay everything back to China. Paranoid? Maybe, but it seems my friend was close to the truth, it turns out. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150219/10124430071/big-lenono-lenovo-massively-compromises-customers-security-brushes-it-off-as-no-biggie.shtml
McCarthy may have been right about “far Left infiltrators” having established themselves in American government and society but the point is he began seeing a Commie under every bed and making most of his accusations against honest Americans. He began using his accusations as a political weapon with the sole goal of advancing his own career. Truth became irrelevant to him and publicity became “everything”. He thought destroying the lives of innocent individuals was a good way to win the presidency. McCarthy was 5% right and 95% wrong. He became a real danger to democracy. He used the power of government in witch hunts whose sole purpose was personal advancement.
Absolutely, his attack on Owen Lattimore was particularly egregious, he accused him of being the ‘top Soviet agent’ in the US without any evidence and initiated a 5 year campaign against him. Ulimately this campaign was a failure (except costing Owen a lot of money to defend himself and ultimately driving him out of the country).
Dear Eugene,
What is your source for your accusations against Sen. McCarthy?
What did McCarthy “lie” about?
The highly effective smear tactics used against Sen McCarthy, by the Willing Accomplices in the destruction of America’s culture, are the exact techniques now used against realists in the AGW debate.
A great man, Stan Evans, wrote the definitive account of the attacks on McCarthy’s character. Evans exposed the actual truth, and the vile character assassination of the Democrats against him.
“Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”
http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068
McCarthy’s most egregious error was his under-estimation of the number of communists and Willing Accomplices who infested the federal government.
Did McCarthy drink? Sure. So what? His alcohol intake does not effect the truth.
For a detailed anatomy of the smears perpetrated by the alarmist-climate-crowd’s ideological ancestors, see this article:
http://humanevents.com/2007/11/13/stan-evans-has-produced-masterpiece-of-truth-about-joe-mccarthy/
Kent
Ghost,
“Making accusations without proper evidence is exactly what McCarthy did. He assumed. He was wrong.”
Really?
What is your evidence that McCarthy’s observations were wrong?
You then contradict yourself by asserting that since the Soviets made in-roads into other governments (including the British government), that the subversives that McCarthy revealed “wasn’t so bad!”
Which is it? Was there no subversive infiltration? Or was there, but because every place else was also infiltrated, it “wasn’t that bad?!”
You also urge others to “read up” on McCarthy. That’s a great idea. But you clearly have a rotten bibliography to guide you in your selection of reading material.
The gold standard of McCarthy research is Stan Evans’ “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.”
Until you read that, you have no ground on which to stand in your full-throated smears against that stalwart defender of America.
Dear Eugene,
What is your source for your accusations against Sen. McCarthy?
What did McCarthy “lie” about?
The highly effective smear tactics used against Sen McCarthy, by the Willing Accomplices in the destruction of America’s culture, are the exact techniques now used against realists in the AGW debate.
A great man, Stan Evans, wrote the definitive account of the attacks on McCarthy’s character. Evans exposed the actual truth, and the vile character assassination of the Democrats against him.
“Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”
http://tinyurl.com/bag8f3k
McCarthy’s most egregious error was his under-estimation of the number of communists and Willing Accomplices who infested the federal government.
Did McCarthy drink? Sure. So what? His alcohol intake does not effect the truth.
For a detailed anatomy of the smears perpetrated by the alarmist-climate-crowd’s ideological ancestors, see this article:
http://tinyurl.com/m3ck4st
Kent
Phil,
“Absolutely, his attack on Owen Lattimore was particularly egregious, he accused him of being the ‘top Soviet agent’ in the US without any evidence and initiated a 5 year campaign against him. Ulimately this campaign was a failure (except costing Owen a lot of money to defend himself and ultimately driving him out of the country).”
Are you privy to some revelations about Lattimore?
Lattimore is a nearly perfect example of McCarthy’s being more right than he even knew.
Lattimore was the shining example of the success of the KGB’s covert influence operations designed to guide American foreign policy. In Lattimore’s case, his job was to ensure that China’s nationalists were denigrated, demeaned, smeared, and defeated in the back-rooms of the US State Dept. The goal of this smear campaign was to ensure that the Chinese communists, and the Comintern, would seize power in China.
Lattimore and his Comintern colleagues, Currie, Agnes Smedley, Sorge, and many others were victorious in this struggle.
Luckily for us, McCarthy was able to bring to light Lattimore’s subversion, and nip his activities in the bud.
Other socialists and communists commented on Lattimore and his anti-American subversive activities:
“Sol Levitas, editor of the socialist magazine The New Leader, wrote that Lattimore was worse than a spy—he was a “LitAg” (literary agitator) of the Kremlin who sought to harm American foreign policy by molding public opinion to favor a pro-Soviet course—and was therefore more valuable to Stalin than a thousand Communist Party members. Far from being simply “a well-meaning liberal martyrized by McCarthy for telling unpalatable truths about Asia,” wrote the socialist Sidney Hook, Lattimore, “at the very least, was a devious and skillful follower of the Communist Party line on Asian affairs” who had more influence on American foreign policy in Asia than “all anti-Communists combined.” As the American Committee for Cultural Freedom concluded in an article in The New Republic, “Lattimore was indeed a willing instrument of the Soviet conspiracy against the free world.”
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona is an avowed communist.
Is this mostly fact or fiction?
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2011/09/red-reps-14-scoop-arizona-rep-raul-grijalvas-communist-party-connections/
Seems to be fact: http://keywiki.org/Ra%C3%BAl_Grijalva
kentclizbe February 27, 2015 at 7:04 am
Phil,
“Absolutely, his attack on Owen Lattimore was particularly egregious, he accused him of being the ‘top Soviet agent’ in the US without any evidence and initiated a 5 year campaign against him. Ulimately this campaign was a failure (except costing Owen a lot of money to defend himself and ultimately driving him out of the country).”
Are you privy to some revelations about Lattimore?
No, although I did know him.
Lattimore is a nearly perfect example of McCarthy’s being more right than he even knew.
Lattimore was the shining example of the success of the KGB’s covert influence operations designed to guide American foreign policy. In Lattimore’s case, his job was to ensure that China’s nationalists were denigrated, demeaned, smeared, and defeated in the back-rooms of the US State Dept.
All this is unsupported nonsense without any evidence to support it, particularly the suggestion that he was doing this in the back-rooms of the State department, as his wife Eleanor said at the time “my husband has never been a State Department consultant or official of any kind”.
The goal of this smear campaign was to ensure that the Chinese communists, and the Comintern, would seize power in China.
Was this while he was working as a political advisor to Chiang Kai-shek? That must have made him very popular with his boss!
Luckily for us, McCarthy was able to bring to light Lattimore’s subversion, and nip his activities in the bud.
McCarthy failed to bring any such activities to light.
As the congressional hearing concluded: “We find no evidence to support the charge that Owen Lattimore is the ‘top Russian spy’ or, for that matter, any other sort of spy” and described McCarthy’s case as “a fraud and a hoax”.
The China Lobby didn’t like Owen’s assessment on the situation in China although subsequent events proved him right (including his aRussian spy’ or, for that matter, any other sort of spy” and described McCarthy’s case as “a fraud and a hoax”.
Phil,
You really ought to reconsider the people you hang out with, if you were close to, and believed Lattimore’s deceptive denials of involvement in Soviet/Comintern influence operations. Lattimore’s denials are of a piece with the mendacious blathering from Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Agnes Smedley, the “Hollywood Ten,” and myriad other Soviet Willing Accomplices involved in subverting American culture and government for their Kremlin masters.
Let’s put Lattimore’s period into context: The Comintern, under Lenin, and then Stalin, vigorously operated around the world, mostly covertly, attempting to impose global communist rule.
The tried and true covert method of the Comintern for gaining control, in a democracy, was to infiltrate the parties, and bit by bit take over the decision-making process. This operational method was made much more effective when agents of influence were inserted into key advisory roles in the target organizations. This is classic KGB tradecraft–in fact, it is how the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia–they simply cloned the approach in all other countries they targeted.
The KGB was massively successful in infiltrating covert influence agents into the FDR government. From the President’s office, to the OSS/CIA, through the State Dept, Treasury, and virtually every other important policy-making body in the US government, as well as “think tanks” and advisory bodies.
Lattimore was recommended for the job as an advisor to Chiang Kai-Shek by–wait for it–Soviet agent Lachlan Currie. Lattimore was also strongly endorsed by–wait, it can’t be!–Soviet agent Harry Dexter White. Both White and Currie were high level officials in FDR’s government, and actively worked influence operations for the benefit of the global communist efforts.
Was Lattimore’s association with, and insertion by, Soviet espionage agents accidental? Au contraire! This is a model of how the KGB ran its influence operations–they swarmed their target with as many influence agents as possible, and the influence agents formed interlocking rings of self-reinforcing advisors, all making the same suggestions, and all denigrating any nay-sayers.
More than one KGB defector named Lattimore as a KGB/GRU resource of high importance, and “one of our men.” [Alexander Barmine]
Lattimore’s most successful operation, for the Comintern, was his role in turning USG policy against supporting the Nationalist Chinese, and towards the communist Chinese. This operation included a swarm of Comintern influence agents, Agnes Smedley and Richard Sorge among them, denigrating the non-communist American ally. The proof of this Lattimore operation, besides his cheek-by-jowl cooperation with known Comintern agents, inside and outside the USG, is the result. Thanks to Lattimore’s vigorous denigration of Chiang, and lies about the communists, American policy was shifted to support the communists. The result was millions of dead Chinese, and the last 60 years of communist hell for the country.
There is much, much more on your buddy’s activities in support of communist causes. You may want to shift your allegiances to Agnes Smedley–maybe you can call Smedley’s prosecutors names, as you have McCarthy. Might make you feel better–but it doesn’t change history!
“n 1952, after 17 months of study and hearing, involving 66 witnesses and thousands of documents, the McCarran Committee issued its 226-page, unanimous final report. This report stated that ‘Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy’, and that on ‘at least five separate matters’, Lattimore had not told the whole truth. One example: ‘The evidence… shows conclusively that Lattimore knew Frederick V. Field to be a Communist; that he collaborated with Field after he possessed this knowledge; and that he did not tell the truth before the subcommittee about this association with Field..”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/31/the-most-painfully-hilarious-anti-keystone-pipeline-video-ever/
Grijalva has no authority. Zilch. The republicans control the committee, subcommittees, subpoena power, witness summons, etc., etc. His letters can be ignored with impunity. But this targeting of individuals is going to backfire. The warmers are vulnerable and they will be called to account.
Out of curiosity I checked Grijalva’s district location. Not surprisingly it appears to encompass the University of Arizona Tucson campus and the student housing neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. I also doubt if Raul wrote the letter himself, it’s way too polished for such an obvious grifter.
Ed: You beat me to it! I agree with you that Grijalva did not write this letter: he would have got an intern (supplied by Greenpiss?) to do it for him. My reply to him would be ‘Koff! (I have Anglo-Saxon roots)
Probably someone from Center for American Progress. Carol Browner is back there, Podesta has gone back to the Clintons to try and keep continuity at the next election.
“I suspect that pulling on these threads will backfire on Grijalva, as this will motivate a lot of people to join the fight against this sort of “climate McCarthyism”. You’re right, Anthony, particularly since the IPCC receives funding from BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Sultan of Oman. And then there’s Bill McKibben, a salaried member of the Rockefeller Fund Board of Directors, a non-profit created by oil dollars.
What a sick little person.
Willie Soon has been thoroughly discredited. I wonder who’s going to be next as the house of cards comes crashing down.
Don’t you prefer staying under the bridge?
Charlie,
Teaching a troll the difference between right and wrong is like teaching a ‘dog’ trigonometry.
Can’t be done, so please troll elsewhere.
How can attacking the scientist affect the science?
If Bozo the Clown tells you grass is the colour green would it become red?
The fact that this Ringmaster is attacking the man is proof that he can’t find fault with the science.
Charlie The Wonder Dog,
Soon discredited? What happened to Soon isn’t discrediting. You want to observe discrediting? Mann, because of his inept papers in 1998 (Nature) and 1999 (GRL), was professionally discredited.
House of cards? Why are the ‘settled science’ scientists attacking the skeptics if the ‘settled science’ is overwhelmingly and truly verified by reality? Well, it seems the ‘settled science’ scientists have encouraged the Democrats to go after skeptics because the ‘settled science’ scientists’ failed the science debate with skeptics in the science arena, so metaphorically speaking the ‘settled science’ scientists’ house of cards is falling down.
John
John, Matt, it looks like the dog was just another hit ‘n’ run.
Hopefully, when you get home, your mother will come running out from under the front verandah, and bite you on the leg !
OMG…..OMG I am SOOOO sorry for ALLL Americans who have to put up with so abjectly STUPID politicians. This man is an embarrassment to the US educational system. AND a letter to the President of MIT yet. I’m sure he just had a real edumication! He is an avowed IDIOT!
Sorry for the shouting, I’ve just seen too much stupid today.
Mod. snip me if you must it will be sufficient that at least one other person has seen my opinion.
Cheers!
Roger
In the past I thought the term “useful idiots” was derogatory.
The problem with true believers like Grijalva is they think there really is an oil money conspiracy to stop climate activists from saving the world. Since they think the fate of humanity hangs in the balance, their determination to stop at nothing, no matter how despicable, to destroy their opponents is a measure of the strength of their belief.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Eric, I do not believe this at all. The intention is to grow big government and bring Democrats to permanent one party rule. With unknown 10s of millions of illegal aliens in the US and Obama giving them a $35K tax refund (even if they paid no tax at all) they will block vote for the Democrats.
Global warming is a tool to obtain the objective of radical leftist/socialist/communist/ democrat party rule, and one party rule. Please look into it a little deeper and see there are no good intentions here.
Is this panic setting in?
If these things were important to this congress critter, why has it waited til now to act?
I think the coming majority committee look at the fluid records with that amazing “necessary” adjustment, the failure of Rio and the cold,cold facts of winter, may have the power-hungry getting nervous.
The public mood is souring, the handouts are slowing and the party is winding down.
And now these 3rd rate minions are being rushed to the propaganda front, save the Cult of Calamitous Climate, by destroying the honest and slandering all who doubt.
It is a cult in collapse.
It is going to get messy, they are hysterical…always have been.
Was he actually trying to parody:
??
That video belongs here…
The hypocrisy with respect to impartiality takes ones breath away. Are the bureaucrats really this clueless? Does this guy think hyperbolic alarmists are neutral or impartial or are just following the evidence wherever it may lead?
That anyone receiving funds other than gravy train government funds are somehow tainted?
Seriously? You know it is both scary and fascinating to watch the crumbling of a culture. Unreal!.
fUnding? Is that something to do with Anthony Weiner?
[Corrected. .mod]
If MIT cooperates any differently than did the University of Virginia regarding certain inquiries about Dr. Mann, then we will know that academia is completely and totally corrupt.
Back to the Middle Ages we go. Burn climate skeptic witches!! Burn!!
And I was foolish enough to believe that the mindset and thinking of people here in the U.S. had evolved significantly since that certain event in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 and 1693.
Apparently not enough.
Well Raul, I’d like to draw your attention to the recent paper by the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), which showed that over a 10 year period, an increase of CO2 levels by over 5% resulted in a change to energy flux at the surface of just 0.2 w/m2.
No Raul, I know you probably don’t know what an energy flux is, or how much difference 0.2 w/m2 makes. So, I will try and explain. According to two well known physicists named Stefan and Boltzmann, the average energy flux at the earth surface is about 390.08 w/m2, and an extra 0.2 w/m2 would raise that to 390.28 w/m2.
Now I know (your president is fond of those words, is he not?) that you probably don’t know what that means in terms of temperature. So I will refer you back to Stefan and Boltzmann who calculate that this would mean an increase in earth’s temperature of 0.037 degrees C. Now I know (hey, I like playing the condescending snob!) that you probably don’t know what a degree C is, so I will convert it for you. That’s just 0.0666 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now I know (Gosh this is fun!) that you’re probably rather confused right now. One part of you is probably going “oh my god, the sign of the devil!” but I assure you that this is just a coincidence. The other part of you is thinking wow, only 0.0666 degrees F over ten years for a 5% increase in CO2? This must be some seriously bad science and I had better investigate it”
I would urge you to do so Raul. You had best dig into just who funded this US Department of Energy study. But more importantly, you had better investigate these physicists. I have it on good authority Raul, that Stefan and Boltzmann’s work has been cited by a considerable number of American institutions. You should demand that all universities, technical schools and engineering schools disclose immediately their affiliation with Stefan and Botlzmann. I have it on good authority that many of them have even taught their work as if it were fact. There’s a lot of these institutions Raul, and you need to look into them.
Too bad the schmeckel will probably not read or hear of your comment. Well done.
David,
That’s not the way to calculate surface temperature change (dT) in response to change in forcing (dF). The correct way is given in the 1st IPCC report (Cess et al, 1989).
Climate Sensitivity parameter = 1/(dF/dT –dS/dT)
…which, in the no feedback case, simplifies to dT= dF/3.3
If you want to approximate using Stephan-Boltzmann, you should use 240 W/sq.m instead of 390 W/sq.m because, from the IPCC calculation,
“The climate system absorbs 240 W/sq.m of solar radiation so that under equilibrium conditions it must emit 240 W/sq.m of infrared radiation. The CO2 radiative forcing constitutes areduction in the emitted infrared radiation, since this 4 W/sq.m forcing represents a heating of the climate system. Thus the CO2 doubling results in the climate system absorbing 4W/sq.m more energy than it emits and global warming then occurs… ”
Using 240 instead of 390 gives a reasonable approximation to Cess et al. , from my calculation.
You are confusing Radiative Forcing which is calculated at the Effective Black Body Temperature of Earth and Surface Forcing. The Effective Black Body Temperature of Earth is 255K which is about 240 w/m2, but this temperature occurs at the MRL which is high above the surface. To calculated temperature change at surface, you have to substitute average temperature at surface which is 288K and 390 w/m2. Since the experiment I refer to above is a direct measurement of surface forcing, and not derived from theory or modeling, it can be directly calculated as I have done. The difference between RF and SF is explained in IPCC AR4. Going from memory I think it is WG1 Ch2.
Thus the CO2 doubling results in the climate system absorbing 4W/sq.m more energy than it emits and global warming then occurs… ”
And this is actually wrong, or at best a poor explanation. At equilibrium, the climate system absorbs and emits the exact same amount, 240 w/m2. What changes is where it is emitted from on average. Everything above the MRL gets cooler and everything below gets warmer, but if you took the average temperature of the atmospheric air column from surface to TOA, it would not change.
I loved the “Now I know” part it just makes me wonder when he started “knowing” all of this. BTW I hate seeing WUWT being turned into a political back and forth. Now I know that it is necessary at times but this subject is better ignored. Now I know that won’t happen so now I know I just had to put in my 2 cents worth. ( just as our dear leader does).
Does it make any difference that the Koch brothers have two research buildings in their name at MIT?
Does it make any difference that the Koch brothers provide funding for NOVA and other PBS ‘science’ programs?
And the ACLU.
They are evil! EVIL!!! Of course, the fact that George Soros donated $196 million to get Net Neutrality passed means nothing.
Net Neutrality was not “passed” it was “imposed” by an FCC vote of 3 to 2 , yesterday and done so without yet even revealing to the public what the rules are that they voted on. Another authoritarian move by the US Government.