The Economic Times reports that there is a profound shortage of scientists choosing to study climate change – that advanced Physics and Maths graduates are being attracted to more interesting fields, such as Cosmology.
According to the Economic Times;
The facts should speak for themselves. The Divecha Centre for Climate Change, at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is organising a national conference on climate change in July. The deadline for submitting abstracts is just two weeks away, and the organisers have received too few quality abstracts of papers for the conference. The message is quite clear: not enough people work on climate change in India.
Till recently, Govindasamy Bala, a professor at the centre involved in organising the conference, thought this was uniquely an Indian problem. But a news story in the journal Nature early this month told him that it was not the case. The story talked about the shortage of good climate scientists in the world, and the efforts of some climatologists to attract more physicists and mathematicians to their field. “I was surprised to learn that shortage of good climate scientists is a global problem,” says Bala.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/why-not-enough-people-are-working-on-climate-change-in-india/articleshow/46965264.cms
The issue, in my opinion, makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you are a talented graduate, bursting with intellectual potential, would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?
Aw, too bad. Climatism is no longer a growth industry.
We’ve (the people following climate science) known this forever. Anyone expressing surprise at this has clearly not been paying attention or has only paid attention to one side.
I think Richard Lindzen summed it up best, starting at 2:50:30
Yes. When I was reading Physics at Oxford, everyone who planned to stay in science wanted jobs in Astrophysics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, or the other sexy areas. Climate Science was for the ‘special ed’ students; though, admittedly, the ‘special ed’ students at Oxford were probably smarter than most at the average British university.
RW Turner: I think your purpose here was to suggest that the science is settled “just listen to these reasonable sounding guys” who wrote the IPCC assessment but I think that it is interesting that they threw out Mann and the hockey stick pretty unceremoniously not wanting to be held back by “errors” made 20 years ago. That’s a pretty dramatic statement!
The summary of this video of a UK parliamentary enquiry, is that THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED. I think it would have been helpful if the MPs had pointed this out to the scientists. In fact, far from being settled at 30 min or so it seems as if they are making it all up as they go along.
Well I is not too surprising. If you read any financial news items, you don’t find a great number of IPOs for entrepreneurial climate control investment opportunities.
Not a lot of job openings in industry for people who understand that CO2 is a green house gas.
And with 65% of US University PhD grads in Physics, being doomed to a life as a post doc fellow at some institution, because nobody will pay them to work on the subject of their chosen doctoral thesis, it seems that there is not a big call for climate “scientists” to help entrepeneurs create jobs for people, or useful products either.
There’s not a lot of job openings for people with expertise in ‘ethnic studies’ , aka racism either. Yet people still get degrees in that or political “science”.
Well I think we can’t simply brand all people working in that field as “less than useful.”
The credible prediction of significant weather events is of considerable social and economic importance.
The entire cost of the US moon landing program, was recouped in less time than the project took, because of the reduction in crop losses enabled by improved advance weather forecasting. That came about because of the need to maintain round the globe communication with orbiting vehicles, and round the globe weather watching.
A robot space program, sans astronauts would have required none of that network.
And who among us thinks that the remote sensing programs that RSS and UAH rely on for their data gathering are not of great value.
I’m one skeptic who places a lot of credibility in the information that we get as a consequence of what John Christy, and Roy Spencer do, along the with the folks at RSS.
We need to support those folks, because they are the ones who bring sanity in the midst of the chaos, and they are putting their career reputations up on the target board as well.
I think your summation is absolutely correct. If I was choosing a career, climate science would be the last one I would choose even though I thoroughly enjoy it as an outsider.
In fact, I doubt you could even get a PhD these days if you questioned any of the current dogma.
My guess is what India is missing is true scientific researchers in the climastrology field.
If India really wants more climate change research I’m certain the US has a major abundance of the idiots they seek at our universities like Penn State, Stanford, Columbia, NYU etc.
I’m willing to accept the loss if most of them move to India.
Come now, no reason to insult astrologers, who do at least know how to work out planetary motions correctly.
And what have you got against India?
I get it. After reaping the benefits of the brain drain from places like India, you want to add insult to injury by sending them all our intellectual dead-beats. That’s really twisting the knife.
“””””…..
rw
April 20, 2015 at 12:31 pm
I get it. After reaping the benefits of the brain drain from places like India, you want to add insult to injury by sending them all our intellectual dead-beats. …..”””””
So what is your evidence for this “brain drain from places like India,”
I think if you look at the facts, you will find that many of these “drained brains” are in fact US educated persons who came here on “student visas”, which are supposed to educate them so they can go back and raise the educational level of their own country.
But instead they choose to play the system, aided and abetted by the high tech slave traders, who agitate for ever more H1B visas, to circumvent the student visa program, so they can keep these folks here working for sub par wages, since the worker doesn’t own the H1B visa; the company does.
If you are wanting already educated immigrants with demonstrated capabilities (that you can’t find locally), then why not simply give them real green card permanent resident status visas, so they can immigrate to the USA, as free persons, instead of being indebted to the Zuckerburgs and Gates’s of silicon valley.
There are plenty of USA residents and citizens well qualified to fill these jobs but H1B slaves will work for cheap until they have their anchor baby permanent resident ticket.
American citizens are being scammed, and would be immigrants are being short circuited by the H1B claim jumpers.
Anybody who wants to freely employ the services of skilled workers from wherever they might be on earth, can simply contract for the services of the companies that these “entrepeneurs” are supposedly good at forming, You can hire working people anywhere on earth, without transporting them to someplace else.
The so-called “brain drain” is actually a population export policy of those countries that have already overpopulated their own ability to feed their citizens; so they export them to whoever they can get to take them.
Brains don’t have to be in specific locations to do useful work.
Simple solution …
Take climate studies out of the Schools of Science and move it
into the Schools of Government/Politics … no intelligence required.
Agree 100 %
+1
Brandon Gates hardest hit…
Naw. I sold out a long time ago. The choice was grad school or private sector manufacturing at a salary comparable to what post-docs I had been working with were making. I took the money.
and here i thought Climate Scientists were all making the BIG $$$’s from all those gubmint grants? hmmmmmm ….
A top research scientist easily makes more than I do, but most PhDs are not top research scientists. Getting a doctorate isn’t cheap either, and takes at least double the amount of time I spent in college. In terms of financial return, I’m quite happy with my decision.
I thought it was part of Railway Engineering? 🙂
Historically a sub-school of the military industrial complex.
Certainly not. That’s an honourable profession (o.k., there’s a few exceptions …).
No, no. School of Religion, definitely. Do I hear an amen?
In a deliciously ironic sort of way, yes.
OMG … no, no, no !! You think it’s bad enough trying to criticize the field now? Just image the nightmare if it could wrap itself in the 1st amendment as a special religion … it’ll be as bad as criticizing Islam … or worse … Hillary Clinton.
Just picture Al Gore going back to Divinity School to finish his studies … it boggles the mind.
Leon,
“Oh – the humanities!”
Better, teach climate “science” in the Department of Comparative Religion
I understand most universities that offer degrees in “climate science” have placed it in their geography departments.
That alone indicates it isn’t considered a hard science by most academicians. Placing it in their Schools of Government/Politics is perhaps where it rightly belongs.
Actually Rocky, The Geography Department, is exactly where the study of climate should take place. Climate is certainly to a large extent a consequence of Geography.
Actually it and Economics should be under Social Sciences as they are all part and parcel of voodoo science to run the world.
Well It just so happens that just today, I had a couple of interesting trips to IRiSS at Stanford University in Palo Alto Ca.
My wife was attending a seminar there with educational researchers from all over the USA. All mucky mucks with doctorates and fellows falling all over the place.
Oh ! it stands for Institute for Research in the Social Sciences.
The bulletin board had the research resumes of all of the docs and fellows (izzat the same as “chaps” ?) and visiting scholars. Not students mind you, but Scholars. One of the Professors invited me to take her place at the barbecue, which had flowing wine and spare ribs from “Armadillo Willys.” I don’t know if the spare ribs were road kill or not.
Anyway, the resumes of these scholar doc fellows , at least the abstract, all read like entries for the Bullwer Lytton Prize contest. Gobbledegook all the way down with plenty of obligatory “robusts” sprinkled here and there.
On of the head researchers in “Race and Inequality” claims that you can actually change your race over time. So just as you can choose from a list of 57 genders or sexes for the US Census folks, you apparently can select from a growing list of races. Now SHe didn’t have anything to say about race and equality, so I presume that inequality is required in order to have a race.
Well 20 minutes after we left, my wife was unable to explain just what the seminar was about. She’s a bilingual Spanish English grade school teacher.
It is in a very nice quiet location out in the boonies, and there were Jack rabbits and deer running around in the parking lot.
No I’m not going to tell you if I saw a Mountain Lion in the parking lot.
So these assembled mucky mucks also included people from industries like video teaching equipment suppliers; all trying to tie up contracts I presume.
But we had fish and chips, sans newsprint, instead of staying for the barbecue on the Professor’s ticket.
Yes Physics, and Climate Science are not alone in creating fellows and docs, and maybe chaps too all searching for grant moneys.
g
Credentialed to destroy the hors d’oeuvres.
================
I would add advertising and marketing to my studies and a psychiatry course or two as well.
No wonder faced with the choice working for the Beano or being a climate “scientist”.
Well the Beano is more honest, more rewarding and benefits mankind more – easy choice!
And Beano actually can control methane gas emissions!
http://www.beanogas.com/
I’ve told any number of younger people don’t get into any environmental program, that their future comes with an expiry date.
Those are those little interactions that can have a profoundly positive impact on young peoples’ lives.
In today’s economy, where people change careers 3 or 4 times on average, every program has a best-before date. Environmentalism, for good or ill, appears to be with us for longer than most.
I guess what I was getting at was funding for climate science will dry up after the next realistic President is sworn in. Once that happens we won’t hear much about climate anymore.
Witness one John Cook who started out in physics ( BSc w 1st Class Honours) and got employment as a web designers for 12 years or so, drifted/wandered into climate alarm advocacy/’communications’ as ‘Webmaster, Skeptical Science, Qld, Australia’ gets gigs as an ‘Adjunct Lecturer, University of Western Australia’ and ‘Climate Change Communication Fellow, Global Change Institute, Australiia’ and is now doing a PhD in cognitive psychology under the thrall of La Lewandowsky ( who is now in the UK)
I have seen puppies loose at the park showing more focus and method as they piddle on every tree trunk and sniff every canine derriere in sight.
Judging by his latest Youtube video for his upcoming “MOOC” project ( enrolments open 28th April folks) and much other material in the public domain it seems to me that, for his own mental health, he should perhaps have stuck to physics, he was obviously reasonably good at it. Perhaps too little chance of public adulation and cheap academic bling though and maybe that is the nub of it. People who are into physics, chemistry and maths are generally not your show pony type. On the other hand ‘climate science’ is somewhere that narcissists can just ‘come out’ so to speak and declare that its not about the ‘science’ for them, its just about ‘them’ and being part of a recognised ‘Team’..
I worked for one of the most liberal colleges in the US. I had students in the Climate Sciences come to me with stories about how their research had shown that a particular aspect of climate change was not correct. Their supervising professor would tell them that it would not be published until they went back and found “better” results. Each year about 50% of the students transferred out of the climate sciences into another area, some left the school altogether. Generally the students who left were the smarter and more motivated students. The ones that remained were generally the marginal students who found a way to get “better” results in their research.
So… the good students didn’t want to dedicate their lives to poor science and bs. What a surprise.
On one of my courses, I was asked to research how global warming was causing more hurricanes, etc. When I submitted my essay, I was given a really low grade. The lowest I’d ever had. I’m sure you can guess the reason why. It was because my research showed that GW had not caused any increase in hurricanes at all. It was thanks to this episode that I began to question the whole GW thing. Until then, I hadn’t really thought about it.
“The ones that remained were generally the marginal students…”
Gee that sounds just like the current crop of climate extremists. Which explains why they are stuck in the “program” because for them there is no place else to go.
There’s always somewhere else to go.
It’s the methods that are at fault, not the students who follow the best they can.
Ahhh, but they (climate extremists/not the students) have to have the mental acuity/ability to do so, and with the sorry models and science they put out, that is not at all evident.
Indeed – WalMart is always looking for new ‘greeters’….
Mac:
Actually, Walmart no longer uses greeters. Quality of “climate scientists” applicants musta been too low…
Perhaps it is even more straightforward. I’d like to believe that the vast majority of scientists are unwilling to manipulate or falsify data. Perhaps a lot of climate research is producing data with the “wrong” answers. The scientists know that a paper reaching the “wrong” conclusion won’t be published, but they are unwilling to fudge the data. Therefore, they simply don’t publish.
I am often reminded why the Soviet Union had such great minds in the hard sciences — Mathematics and Engineering, for example, and so many mushy thinkers were in the soft “social” sciences. Even the USSR couldn’t think of a way to politicize 2 + 2. But the social sciences were slaves to Soviet ideology.
Why bother when we all know now that the science is settled.
+1
I would rather do real science thank you. If I wanted to do fake science I would get a degree in political science. The only bad thing about this is that the climate scientists of tomorrow are likely to be even more subpar than the climate scientists of today, so things might get worse before they get better.
“political science”
This is an oxymoron, sullying the good name and reputation of science.
Climate science has become the oxymoron.
-or should that be a carboxymoron?
All I know is that Gore is a boron.
Given the way Al Gore jumped on AGW as a financial ‘golden goose’, I think it more likely he is a ‘lepton’!
Fusion is still interesting. And difficult. The difficulty is not the physics It is the engineering. Just the place for a lab guy. I like Polywell Fusion.
So how do you propose to do the engineering of fusion, if the physics says it may not even be possible on a planetary size body. CONTROLLED that is !
A promising indication that this lie is finally beginning to fade away.
The writing is not only on the blackboard; it’s on the wall.
as universities are all about admission and retention now –
the Art Department within the College of Climate could offer
a major in graffiti
Surely the fact that there is a shortage of good Climate Scientists is old news? Hasn’t it been the case for at least 25 years?
My thoughts exactly.
Yes but in climate it take a minimum of 30 years to find out that nothing much is happening.
There are no jobs in either climate or meteorology any more, especially if you are not a climate modeler. I work from observations. Because the observations don’t support the politics, I was not welcome in the field. Now work in insurance solving real problems using real data. Should have done it years ago.
There always has been a shortage of GOOD scientists in this field.
I would submit that those people who beat the CAGW drum aren’t scientists at all.
The Economic Times reports that there is a profound shortage of scientists …
Well of course there is. There is a profound lack of science, so what do they expect?
Surely the Economic Times has heard of Gresham’s Law? Well, it applies to climate scientists, too. Bad ones drive good ones out of circulation.
“I was surprised to learn that shortage of good climate scientists is a global problem,”
For once one can while heartedly agree.
Climate scientists there are, but very few good ones…..
the organisers have received too few quality abstracts of papers for the conference. The message is quite clear: not enough people work on climate change in India.
===============
Wrong. That is not what is being shown. What is being shown is what rates as “quality abstracts” by the organizers.
Climate papers are low quality because first and foremost they must be Politically Correct. Otherwise they will not get published, because previous publishers have been sacked for publishing Climate papers that were Politically Incorrect.
Science has taken a backseat to Political Correctness. As a result there is very little science being practiced. Instead what we see are affirmation studies. Scientists searching for examples that uphold the politically correct view and publishing this as “science”, in return for continued financing.
If one searches long enough, one can always find positive examples of wrong-headed ideas. That is how superstition and pseudo-science develops. Someone does a dance and it rain, therefore the dancing caused the rain. Frogs die in massive numbers globally, proof that the climate is changing. A computer says it is so, it must be so. The Oracle of Delphi replaced by the Oracle of Intel.
Good point, but I have a slightly different take on ‘quality’. Do we know the attitude of the organizers? Perhaps there were too many papers shading into doubt, and that was what was determined to be ‘not enough quality’.
===============
Heh, maybe TERI was too demoralized to flood the conference with propaganda.
============
The authors analysis at the end of the article is “just the facts”.
If you had to work with or under Michael Mann, would you be running to sign up for climatology?
But wait, weather is climate! Now more than ever people are needed to make up crap.
http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/our-programs/climate-science#wwa
New Project: World Weather Attribution
Climate Central is pleased to announce a new initiative called World Weather Attribution that will seek to perform “extreme weather autopsies” immediately after an extreme weather event occurs, when the world’s media is still asking “was this event caused by climate change?” With our partner at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, we are working on a tool that will look at the role of global warming in extreme weather events around the globe — not months later, as has been the case; but in real-time using the citizen science distributed infrastructure climateprediction.net.
The insurance industry will love it.
“We regret to inform you that your claim for storm damage repair to your roof has been disallowed as that particular weather event has now been identified as having been man-made. Might we take this opportunity to offer you the opportunity to upgrade your insurance cover at a special discount rate so that you are insured against future losses which are attributable to climate change. This will only cost you double what you have already been paying.”
I have a confession to make. Because Steve’s comment was not in quotes I thought he was paraphrasing the announcement, putting into his comment a wide-spread (and understandable) bias highlighting the ridiculous nature of weather extreme attribution. So I clicked on Steve’s link to read what I thought might be a more reasonable announcement devoid of the bias we bear. I owe Steve a heartfelt apology.
Lordy.
If you actually read the announcement at the very end they are especially hopeful for a once in fifty year and once in a hundred year events to study (presumably since a single occurrence will allow a “human fingerprint” lynch mob to be incited).
“extreme weather autopsies”
Josh! Where are you!!!
It’s dead, Jim!
https://youtu.be/r0yXqU-w9U0
Is that tool one M Mann?
As a meteorologist and weather analyst, I can say that I have only met a few climate modelers capable of dissecting weather events. None of them work at Climate Central.
It would be like studying to be an automotive engineer then settling for a job selling used cars. Who can blame them.
Nice analogy
Avoiding climate studies makes sense; a young person is preparing for a hopefully trouble-free career over the course of 30-40 years. Thus he or she should be careful of boom-bust (financial-type) fields and should avoid fields that are full of controversy and also may be mixed up with politics for an indefinite period.
Ah but what fields are more full of controversy than particle physics and cosmology where all these bright young people want to go? It’s not controversy, it’s something else which I think has already been identified above.
Honesty.
That’s what’s lacking in a good portion of “climate science”.
If they can’t cut it in climatism, Lumbersexual Studies is just down the hall.
Good one Max. That’s what I like most about WUWT; I learn something new everyday. I’m not sure if it’s that I know so little, or that the content here is so broad?
Those don’t look like broads to me!
Here is an article that is as profound as it is amusing …
Meet the Lumbersexual: He’s Part Hipster, Part Metrosexual, All Sartorial Man
http://blogs.citypages.com/dressingroom/2015/03/meet_the_lumbersexual_hes_part_hipster_part_metrosexual_all_sartorial_man.php
http://s3.amazonaws.com/policymic-images/7wyvsz5leusoqo8ld7ssv8zzgwj2fcsf9m3wq12iavgdj8kmcrooshwapth0iokz.jpg
Wow, I never realized it was such a complex ecosystem.
Here’s the effort vs polish matrix:
http://thetangential.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lumbersexual-Infographic-A.jpg
Here’s the authenticity matrix: the perceived likelihood of each guy rolling his sleeves, getting his hands dirty, and “doing.”
http://thetangential.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lumbersexual-Infographic-B.jpg
So it really is “Maxine” 🙂
Are those pictures of dildoclimatologists in their lab coats?
Do those guys sleep all night and work all day?
So scientists who disagree with the consensus are intimidated into silence. And new scientists who might disagree are discouraged from entering the field. Working as intended I would say.
Honesty and ethics; Those scientists whith those standards, won’t get involved in corrupt politcal endeavors.
Living as I do in the neighborhood of Bangalore it is not hard to understand why few graduate are attracted to climate studies: the regional climate has not changed for over 120 years. Also Indian newspapers/ channels till recently were not painted Green as in most of the West.
The science of phrenology suffered the same crash.
What a shame. They showed so much promise. I wonder what went wrong?
Skullduggery.
Something just didn’t feel right.
Phrenology was headed in the wrong direction. It’s main claims were bald lies mixed with hoary tales. One’s career path was bumpy once the fools were parted from their money. The whole thing was too fuzzy for the lumpen proletariat.
Bonk on the head, mean G’rup!
Brain scans to determine character traits are a new form of phrenology.
Mark Twain went to a Phrenologisi anonymously. He was informed that he had no sense of humor whatever.
He went back to the same guy a year later, and introduced himself as Mark Twain. The Phrenologist didn’r recall him from before. The second visit, the Phreologist told Mark Twain he had the most giant sense of humor he had ever encounterd.
For some reason that reminds me of ‘global warming causes global cooling’.
Say anything, right?
Once you move science over to the ivory tower section of academia it is not science anymore. i don’t know why somebody like Noam Chomsky publicly supports climate change propaganda given his education. The obvious conclusion is that the tower has gotten really high. Climate science would be a nightmare for any student that cares amount real science and needs a career in that field.
Noam is a communist, power and control..With the fall of the Berlin wall many moved into Greenpeace type things where their techniques work well. Noam appeals to those young easy to influence brains, he almost has to toe the line or lose half his potential readers..
You’d think a cunning linguist would have it licked.
Haha, Anthony in the headings near the top of the website (“Home” – “WUWT Stuff”) could we have another one please entitled “Smut”. Mike could be first entry!
The preceding sentence could be the second!
No, no. Now if his name were Michael Hunt…
Because it a useful tool for those who want all in the west to go around in sackcloth and ashes has a mark of the ‘guilt ‘ for crimes against the ‘third world ‘
Although to be fair Chomsky does believe that some , like themselves, should have a better class of sackcloth and ashes.
When dealing with the left the important thing to remember is for them , is not about who you are for , but who you are against.
I haven’t heard Chomsky comment on the topic for quite a few years. he is a cunning linguist. He has also been wrong on scientific issues and political predictions. I hardly see him as a philosopher but to each their own.
If you’d like to get the flavor of Chomsky’s prose without having to undergo the tedious task of making sense out of it, there is…The Chomskybot!! http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
‘Climate change’ is a psyops weapon designed to destroy individualism, private property, constitutional law, nation states, free markets, contracts, … in a word: capitalism.
Noam Chomsky is a psyops weapon designed to destroy individualism, private property, constitutional law, nation states, free markets, contracts, … in a word: capitalism.
Sometimes correlation is cause and effect…..
I had the opportunity to take a summer course in English phonology taught by Dr. Chomsky a looong time ago (about the time the forever forthcoming Sound Patterns of English was finally published). I also waded through his ideas about levels of adequacy in science. From Wikipedia (Sorry, folks, but this is pretty much boiler-plate reporting):
Observational Adequacy
The theory achieves an exhaustive and discrete enumeration of the data points.
There is a pigeonhole for each observation.
Descriptive Adequacy
The theory formally specifies rules accounting for all observed arrangements of the data.
The rules produce all and only the well-formed constructs (relations) of the protocol space.
“…the grammar gives a correct account of the linguistic intuition of the native speaker, and specifies the observed data (in particular) in terms of significant generalizations that express underlying regularities in the language.” [3]
Explanatory Adequacy
The theory provides a principled choice between competing descriptions.
It deals with the uttermost underlying structure.
It has predictive power.
.So Charlie, when you say, “ i don’t know why somebody like Noam Chomsky publicly supports climate change propaganda given his education, I not only concur, I would add, and given his philosophy. Current climate models completely fail to provide descriptive adequacy, and even observational adequacy in the surface record is highly suspect.
Philosophy from my point of view is the academic study, real life experience and then forming your own idea or ideas. I realize Noam has plenty of the first one. For me that is the least important. I don’t know how is is doing on the other two. When I read or listen to him i feel like he’s talking in an echo chamber surrounded by books. Maybe i just don’t get it. Of course I don’t have a graduate degree in philosophy. I don’t know many people that do.
back in college many decades ago I was a big Chomskyite. And I knew nothing about his politics. But I knew why he switched from “Syntactic Structures” to “Movements on Binding”, about the nature of grammar.
Years later, I think he just got lost. He tried to understand the West, got a little bit of it, but fell short, like a home-run hitter swinging and missing. Something about Dewey, and that he taught at MIT, not Harvard. He just could not really allow himself to think about scientists like they sometimes were.
Plus, once it gets down to anthropological level, there are right-wing taxi drivers who are going to understand things he can’t
I hope I haven’t offended anyone. Chomsky shouldn’t be ragged on like the McKibbens, Manns, Neil D Tyson’s and so on deserve. Chomsky has been big leagues.
I’ve gone into the Stanford library to check Chomsky’s citations — to see if people said what he claimed and were as he described. Anyone who’s read Chomsky’s books knows they’re heavily footnoted. Many footnotes include extensive commentary. Many of the footnotes are themselves footnoted. The overwhelming impression is that his work is thoroughly, impeccably documented and scholarly, and are thus almost certainly objectively factual.
I checked his work starting with his famous 1967 “Responsibility of Intellectuals” article, and spot-checked his work across 35 years. What I found is that he is a systematic misrepresenter. There’s a four letter word that condenses the trait, beginning with L and ending with R.
He took quotes out of context. He misrepresented what the author was trying to convey. He assassinated character. It was always the same: he made his targets look racist, hardhearted, callous, venal, war-mongering, greedy, and otherwise despicable. Chomsky is a smart guy. The misrepresentations could not be otherwise than deliberate. I came to believe Chomsky’s work is consciously meant to sustain the false political-social narrative that capitalism is structurally evil and inevitably produces racist, imperialistic, awful people, who sponsor endemic war, death, and destruction. The AGW narrative fits right into that myth.
It’s bitterly ironic. In his 1967 “Responsibility of Intellectuals” Chomsky famously wrote, “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.” He has systematically done the opposite.
I didn’t mean to make a Chomsky side shoot. I wonder if any reputable climate skeptic has asked for a debate or live interview with Noam. i know Chomsky is known for his work ethic in replying to inquiring minds. He claims he is open to any question or debate. I think if Chomsky is pressed he will discuss this matter and come clean. Imagine a Richard Lindzen and Chomsky podcast or recorded transaction. It would be incredible. While I don’t quite follow Noam’s politics i do believe he is a man of virtue. If he took such a debate it could be a huge leap for this issue. This isn’t about science. We have to go for the big guns of elite liberal politics here.
Charlie, “i do believe he [Chomsky] is a man of virtue.”
He’s a first-class intellectual villain.
Wait, isn’t this the guy that invented the concept of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune (a phrase few of us would be familiar with were it not for Monty Python)?
Noam left the tower long ago and floats in his own pure ivory gondola suspended from the toes of a very, very large tortoise upon whose back there is a whole bunch of other stuff that Noam has little interest in.
Or something like that.
How about more Journalist Scientists with a major in BS? The pay can be fantastic with the money flowing like crazy.
Scott, That’s already a crowded field.
This seems to have the effect of concentrating the expertise in the hands of a few.
Or, on a positive note, limiting the number of climate village idiots…
‘Tain’t an ology. Ology is real science. It should be relegated to an “ography” and made to move into the backroom along with the geographers and photographers. Mind you, climatography would still be full of scaremongering grant whores.
/sarc
“Climatography” certainly has a resonance Brent. It perfectly covers the voiced over visual schlock we get in so much of the MSM.
Well done.
Can I generally recommend the widespread use of the term too all and sundry?
PS
NOT sarc.
I thought there would be a queue lining up to take the easy money.
As K.R. pointed out these are the marginal students who are required to get “better” results in their research. What else are they going to do??
“Graduates shunning climate studies…. being attracted to more interesting fields, such as Cosmology”
Generation of young WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle)
Scared of us the older generation of us MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects)
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/darkmatter/WIMPexperiments.html
I have to confess; I first read cosmology as cosmetology when I was going over a bump and laughed so hard I accidentally hit the emergency kill switch on my tractor and had to get it going again.
I could use a graduate or two to help get anhydrous disc’d in before it rains buckets again.
reading WUWT on your tractor?
watch out for rabbits …
don’t you mean ‘wabbits’ , Bubba?
Many went on to cosmetology.
Climate science: you get to work on so many interesting and exciting projects – as long as they begin and end with CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. The possibilities are endless.
I read a paper once, your actual peer reviewed and published kind, on the effect of the PDO on the mean sea level on the eastern seabord of Australia. The key data was the long tidal record from Fort Denison, a smally, rokky islet in Sydney Harbour , just downstream from the Opera House. It was useful stuff, evidence based and the cyclical variation in MSL clearly visible and readily related to the PDO indices. In short it was real science but obviously under the vast oversight umbrella that controls funding for ‘climate’ science.
The last phrase of the last sentence of the last paragraph of the discussion (i.e. immediately above the list of references ) read (as I recall) “including global warming”.
It seemed the necessary tug of the forelock to get funding and or publication. It was of course utterly irrelevent to the science in question which was about tidal records and the PDO or in effect of tidal records as a proxy for the PDO I suppose.
I’m guessing a climatology degree no longer lands you as good a job as it used too. There is a glut on the domestic market. And, like they say, “Dump, sir? I do not ‘dump’. I sell abroad at a loss in defense of the national interest.”
As others have mentioned, don’t celebrate this news too soon. The journalists in the left wing dominated media who report on science/environment issues usually don’t have any science qualifications (the UK’s BBC is one example). They don’t care who supplies the ‘science’ that backs up their scare stories just as long as they are pumping out the correct message. Merely quoting Professor so-and-so from the Institute of wherever is all that is needed; the quality of the scientist doesn’t matter.
Steve “the quality of the scientist doesn’t matter.” Too right, try website:
http://climatechangepredictions.org/ very tongue in cheek but all predictions and contradictions certainly make me smile and totally confirm my view that AGW is a pile of you-know-what!
To be more specific, if you have 2 post graduate degrees in math and statistics (like my son). Why would you want to work in a field where misuse is common and pointing out this flagrant misuse is frowned upon or even punished.
“…a profound shortage of scientists choosing to study climate change”
Well yea. Since the science is settled and there is no debate. With nothing left to study, why go into a dead end field?
Why spend 8 years getting a doctorate in a Climate Science when today’s “Climate Change” scientists are no better than…
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T0DnfCflL.jpg
don’t need that trade tool anymore, do it on-line:
http://www.ask8ball.net/
I would have thought you an analog kind of fellow.
Not sure about eight years for a doctorate, given the standards which seem to be the norm for climate ‘science’ I think 8 coupons from cereal packets is closer to the mark.
I do believe you have just insulted Magic 8 Balls everywhere.
Graduates shunning climate studies …
Good news here. The fakers are not able to make the young people go into fraud for a living. Thank heaven. On the other hand, when will the undergrads start shunning the idiot climate-astrology courses?
that’s the chance for the wannabe scientist stupids here on WUWT. submit your abstracts….. maybe they accept blog posts now?
Daniel Kuhn,
You are such an unhappy guy, always denigrating readers of WUWT.
FYI: there are more scientists and engineers posting articles and commenting here than on all the alarmist blogs you visit, combined.
You need to start drinking more to help you forget your problems.
db I’ll drink to that!
He’s already drank the kool-aid.
Daniel,
A scientist practices the scientific method, ie stating a falsifiable hypothesis, then testing it empirically with repeatable results. “Climate scientists” thus are not scientists. Many who comment and post here are indeed scientists, with lots of publications to their credit, based on actual observational and theoretical science.
But one need never have actually practiced science herself to know that catastrophic man-made global warming has been repeatedly falsified (in both senses of the term). Indeed, it was born falsified.
Well, this may be your chance.
And here I was thinking the trolls were off this weekend.
Seems they have one of those special ed students covering the blogs part time seeking sympathy for his plight.
Kuhn: Grow up, get a real job!
conspiracy theory?
DK,
My goodness, have you lost heart?
It sounds like you are playing defense, now.
“FYI: there are more scientists and engineers posting articles and commenting here than on all the alarmist blogs you visit, combined.”
can you show me the numbers ?
Of course I can. But that’s doing your homework for you. I’ll answer your questions when you start answering questions. But you haven’t started yet.
I can also show that WUWT has more traffic than all your alarmist blogs. I can also show that WUWT has won more science awards than all your alarmist blogs. I can also show that your bogus “consensus” is nonsense. But the information is there for anyone who wants to do a search.
The real question is this: why are you such a hater, Daniel? If you don’t like WUWT — and it is clear that you don’t — why do you comment here at all? Why not post your comments somewhere more appropriate, like Hotwhopper, or SkS? Oh… you already do, don’t you? You say really bad things about us. Never anything good.
I undersatnd why you’re so unhappy, Daniel. You lost the science debate about eighteen years ago. So now all you’re left with is a political argument, and your constant hating on WUWT. But you know what? I like seeing it. It’s another indication that your side’s losing, because you’ve got nothin’ left but your hate.☺
“Of course I can. But that’s doing your homework for you.”
not at all. you made the claim. so you need to provide the evidence. not me.
so tell me, how many scientists are blogging on the blogs i read?
Danny Kuhn asks question #132:
can you show me the numbers ?
Of course I can. I told you that already.
From a guy who never, ever answers questions, I am amused by your impotent demand that I must keep answering your questions. Those days are over, until there’s a quid-pro-quo.
I’ve answered questions from you for weeks. Lots of them. It’s your turn now.
So answer a couple questions, Dannyboi:
Can you produce a measurement of AGW (I’ll answer that for you: ‘No.’ You can’t. AGW is only your religious belief.)
And: what is your CV? Do you even have any accomplishments? Do you have a degree in the hard sciences? If so, from where? If not… that explains a lot.
Answer up, Dannyboi. Yo’re behind on questions anout 20 – 0. Your turn.
(Snip. Anthony has warned you previously about your off-topic “pressure broadening” comments. There is a proper place for them. If you continue to post pressure broadening comments, your posts will be deleted. ~mod.)
So, you cannot answer the question, which is not suprising, considering the fact that you have not the slightest idea what blogs i read.
why do you make claims you cannot pssibly know?
@D. Kuhn:
Try to pay attention, if you can. As I explained to you repeatedly, I have no problem answering questions. I’m good at it, and I like it.
But you refuse to answer any questions. There is a quid-pro-quo here: I’ve answered a couple dozen questions over the last few weeks; but you haven’t answered any. It’s your turn now.
Either answer the questions I asked you, or you can go pound sand. When you’ve provided specific answers, I will be happy to continue answering your questions. But you are behind about 20 – 0. Time to step up and take your turn answering a few.
[Deleted.]
still no numbers to your claim, 🙂
you should not claim things you cannot possibly know.
Danny Kuhn has been instructed repeatedly that after answering numerous questions he’s asked, it is now his turn to answer a question or two:
I’ll answer your questions when you start answering questions. But you haven’t started yet… I have no problem answering questions. I’m good at it, and I like it.
How many times will Kuhn have to have that simple concept explained to him? I have no problem whatever providing the numbers he craves. He won’t like the answer. That’s because he’s on the losing side of the argument. But I have his numbers here, ready and waiting.
All Kuhn has to do is agree to answer a couple of my questions first. It’s been his turn to answer for a long time now. But I don’t think he can answer.
[[Snip. Per Anthony, please, no ‘pressure broadening’ comments. ~mod.]
Why would anyone with any ambition or any talent go into a field where “The Science is Settled”?
Sorry, but I doubt they would be interesting in a dissertation by me on flare steam control, despite being far more important to the environment than any CO2 nonsense ever written
The Divecha Centre for Climate Change –
http://www.dccc.iisc.ernet.in/
Plenty more material for Eric here, but put on your dark glasses. The flashy stuns.
That is terrible to look at. I wonder if they have subliminals hidden in there.
I only managed a few seconds before the flashing got painful and returned to somewhere calm and by and large well reasoned.
James Bull
I must say that I held some fears for the current generation of twenty somethings which includes my sons. I did fear that they had substantially fallen under the thrall of the feelgooder generation of leftard teachers and their empty headed PC curriculum approach. Of course at the centre of their catechism was a belief that the western economy was in some way evil and destroying the climate.
It would seem, hopefully, they now realise what a pack of tossers that cadre of PC apparatchiks were and are having a good look around.
Nephew obtained a BS in Environmental Science. Took over a year for him to finally land a job at a chemical company…reading meters and recording data to show that the plant met certain government standards. (Sounds exciting!) Laid off shortly thereafter following a merger with another company. Essentially replaced by a meter-reader with no college degree who was paid considerably less. Recently was able to find another job but I don’t yet know the details.
I suspect that a number of undergraduate jobs for individuals with such degrees exist only to demonstrate that certain government environmental rules are followed and that specified standards are met; i.e., basically industry equivalents of government bureaucrats.
Indian , perhaps
Now change that to the west you may find the bountiful research funding , lots of position thanks to the funding and the fact you really can get away with any old rubbish so it no even hard to work in, has long as it produces the ‘right results’ and I would bet its different .
Temperatures have not gone up in line with CO2 increases , but the number of people working in the area has certainly gone up , like a hockey stick, with the increase in scary claims and the usefulness of this area to those with certain political outlooks.
Ask your self this , given the ‘quality ‘ of the work seen from the Team , can you seen them ever getting a job , let alone tenure and professorships, in any other of science ?
Translation: “There are too few scientists who support the CAGW hypothesis, and too many who actually test it.”
You’re welcome!
“or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?”
Not cosmology, the forerunner and inspiration for climatology.
If we use the premise that it true, then we can ask why would there be a downward change in the trend of interest in a postgraduate career in climate science?
The reasons for the premised decline of interest in a climate science focused post graduate studies might be:
1) Currently in some countries in their elementary schools, in middle schools, in high schools and in undergraduate schools everyone is taught to accept belief that climate change theory is settled science and that is supported by the authority of good responsible governments. So they reasonably have lower interest in what they are told is a settled field
2) Young people are pretty sensitive to any lack of professional integrity in the vocal adult scientists publically making incredible statements about climate change. So young people might not want to associate with a field dominated by those scientists
3) Young people are pretty sensitive to the prospects of economic growth in their choice of an area to study. Since the area of climate science is virtually completely government funding dependent and therefore dependent on the political party in power and whimsical/populist fashionable political causes, then many choose to base their careers on less politically fashionable areas of study like hard physics.
4) Young people are simply rebelling against the excesses of their cult-like climate change believing parents
5) It might be that, in general, young people are actually much smarter than their parent’s/ancestor’s generations, as all rational parents hope they would be. So they are simply intelligently voting with their feet against stupidity like the observationally challenged theory of significant climate change
6) . . . any other suggestions for why?
John
John Whitman
6) . . . any other suggestions for why?
Yep!
Old people when they were young built things. They created things such a sporting clubs, organisations, opposition movements, new political movements, new industries and new sciences such as CAGW plus new societal mores and memes.
Old people when they get to that Old People stage expect and often demand that their kids, the next generation continue right on with those same institutions and clubs and movements and organisations that they built when they were young.
But the kids, the next generation is out there doing what their parents did.
They are building a world and the institutions and the society different to that of their parents and the previous generation, a world shaped to the image they will expect to spend the rest of their lives in.
And will make the same mistake and suffer the same angst with their kids as their parents did with them when it comes time to step back with the expectation the kids will takeover.
Sometimes the kids might even take up the old institutions their parents and the older generation put together but only if there is a very considerable personal benefit, mostly financial, in doing so.
But in doing so they will also reshape that institution in their own image and expectations to fit the world they are building for their future.
ROM on April 19, 2015 at 2:58 am
– – – – – –
ROM,
I see that as the ultimate optimistic view of mankind. Johnny likes it. : )
John
The story talked about the shortage of good climate scientists in the world, There has always been a shortage of GOOD climate scientists. In fact finding one is still a major undertaking.
Perhaps their in the deep ocean along with the ‘missing heat ‘ ?
My guess is that what is harder to find are mathematicians willing to perform circus tricks using over parameterized elephants. And without elephants, abstracts got nothin.
but don’t forget, this is post-normal math (and science) so
2 + 2 = whatever policy/agenda/economic goal you want
and that’s just arithmetic
Rabbits Pamela, opinion driven over parameterized rabbits according to today’s research…
I’m starting to think Pamela is a pachydermatologist.
Looks like a cross between an elephant and a rhino.
What’s that called? ‘Eliphino…..
Yes, it is a good sign that fewer students want to make money planning and supporting the mass murder of fellow humans around the globe. It probably helps their decision to see that this is a field that stifles all scientific research that doesn’t conform to an imaginary consensus. So, unless you prefer producing propaganda to real scientific discovery, where’s the fun in that?
What do math and physics have to do with climate science ?
I scanned Pierrehumbert’s manuscript on Planetary Climate for the quantitative equations showing how Venus’s surface temperature could be 2.25 times the gray body temperature in its orbit due to a runaway greenhouse effect despite the fact that no known material spectrum comes within an order of magnitude of the required solar heat gain , and the constraint of the divergence theorem limiting the interior temperature of a radiantly heated body to match that calculated for the surface .
Didn’t find any . And he’s University of Chicago .
So clearly an understanding of basic quantitative physics is not a requirement for a career in climate science .
Make that “… calculated for the spectrum as seen from the outside” .
Yet you can find that temperatures on Venus at altitudes where atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth’s at sea level, are consistent with what basic arithmetic predicts of a planet which is a little closer to the sun than our own.
Sounds like the original beings put too much trust in their computer models when geo-engineering their planet 🙂
We’ll get it right this time, trust them.
I have seen that contention . Please show us your equations which overcome the basic equations of radiative balance and the constraint of the divergence theorem which show it is anything other than a coincidence in the decline from an internally heated surface to the radiative layers of the atmosphere .
Well Peter Humbug once ran his X-box on a program where he removed every last water molecule from the atmosphere to show how CO2 keeps us warm and fuzzy.
Then he turned the real physics switch back on and he got every last drop of his atmospheric water back in just three months.
It’s all in the way he trims his broom; excuse me; that’s his beard.
G
‘Climate Studies’ … isn’t there an app for that?
A STRANGE EDUCATION
by The Cinematics
(with some nice waves thrown in)
Oh I don’t no, “consenu” implies a certain common emotional attachment to the field, and they have plenty of that, especially when it comes to a certain Nazi like hatred of the opposition:
I had an interest in science from a young age and fiddled with chemistry, electricity, astronomy, etc. and had a desire to understand how things worked the way they did. I received my degrees in geology which uses science (physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.) to unravel its mysteries and I believe like meteorology is also in part an ‘art’. The fun part of science is figuring-out how something works or why something got the way it is and the ‘art’ part comes into play as you gain experience studying many examples of different geologic terrains or types of weather patterns (i.e. you start to get a feel).
So after that preamble: I can understand why younger folks interested in the sciences might steer away from climate studies when they hear over and over from the so called 97% that its solved science.
Therefore, what possible fun could there still be.
I know this is simplified and crude, but I thinks still in part true.
Cheers,
Mark Beeunas
**********************************
Consensuscience: The establishment of a politically important unquestionable fact, based upon the opinion of the majority of those in authority on the subject who are also political allies.
Cripes! A brand new term!
When 97% Cook did his paper, I was not surprised at the statistic (probably only 3% are real sceptics – think dissenters in USSR and China where the bravest critical sceptics are) but was amazed that that there were 13,000 climate science papers published in 10yrs available to choose from and this was a selection! so probably there were 20,000 of them, which is 4 or 5 a week for a science that has one math formula and one chemical compound to deal with. Even Mann said there were lots of hockey stick papers. Why would we need so much repetition. The problem is we have, perhaps 100,000 too many climate scientists. I advised a geology graduate student I met at a conference who was taking the ‘environmental’ option to get out of it quick – there was already a huge oversupply and the 17yr pause was trying to tell her something.
I’m not surprised that there were too few quality abstracts for a conference. WTF is new with this total bust of a discipline.
To paraphrase Macbeth, Climate ‘Scientists’ are idiots telling a tale, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Make that “who are politically allied“.
Yes. I studied a lot of Soil Science during my late-in-life University work. Some of that department were rabid greenies. This was much to the contempt of their Geologist and Vulcanologist colleagues. Luckily, there was no room for BS in the actual science. So, when allotted methane and other ‘ghg’ soil emissions for an assignment, I had much fun defending my findings. Among these were that natural variation and measurement error swamp any putative conclusion of ‘harm’. Couldn’t find it then, cannot now, even with a better appreciation of Physics. Glad to see the tide turning….Brett
“…would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?”
I agree completely. Try an exciting career as a black hole artist! (:
http://www.chalmers.se/SiteCollectionImages/Nya%20bilder/Nyhetsartiklar%201/eso1028a_690x330.jpg
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/b3/XMM-Newton_Outflows_B_full.jpg
Cosmology does seems to be struggling these days, judging by the generous sprinklings of fairy dust everywhere.
Black holes?
Dark matter?
Degenerate neutronium?
Pure brain splatter,
Leaving known physics
In a state of tatter.
A quarter billion hits to this website illustrate the point that Climate Science is an interesting, highly diversified field. The quality of technical comments demonstrates that highly educated scientists and engineers are willing to devote a portion of their limited time on our spinning orb to following developments in the field.
If I mention the names Richard, John, Roy, Willie, Willis, Judith, Christopher E, Eric, of course Anthony, and even Nick, most will quickly add the last names I have in mind. These are good scientists or Applied Mathematicians making solid contributions to the field. More are needed from among the young to address what Judith terms, “A wicked problem.” Imagine if the current California drought had been clearly predicted in terms of onset twenty years ago. The dreadful mismanagement of water resources by the state government could have been averted, preventing the misery that many are experiencing.
Can the Closure Problem be solved? Can analysis of chaotic systems advance to the point that bounds and directionality of deviations be approximated to the point that a twenty-year, reasonably reliable weather forecast be achieved? The fields of Science and Mathematics have frequently progressed in concert. The development of Variational Calculus was presaged by the Brachistochrone Problem; can other advancements similarly occur? The usurpation of the normal scientific process by political interests has led to the affirmation studies noted by ferdperple above. It has led to unjustified advancement in the field and press adulation of hocky-stickers (think Mike and Steve) resulting from what amount to rookie errors that were missed in the review process. This too will pass.
Many of us began our graduate work loving the science, with our career advancement and wealth accumulation being secondary considerations. Should I have listened to the many well-meaning individuals who suggested business management or law? The tragectory of my life would have certainly been different. Would I have been happier with the outcome? Is my value to society measured by the size of my paycheck? The young people need to make such decisions with greater urgency than we. Is a career in the very bowels of the “Wicked Problem” appropriate for them? Only they can decide. The field needs the good ones; the rest will self-select out.
Oops, trajectory, of course. I wonder why the adaptive typing wanted to use tragedy. I didn’t correct far enough back. Was it trying to tell me something?
Oh the comedy and trajectory of life.
“making solid contributions to the field.”
LOL when will that happen?
Still hating, eh, Daniel? What a sad life you live.
hot hating, laughing at the amount of delusions here.
not
Daniel, you are a hater. Look at all your comments, filled with ‘hot’ hatred for this excellent site.
Someone is wrong. It’s either you, or everyone else.
Which?
“Someone is wrong. It’s either you, or everyone else.”
considering that most experts are convinced by the evidence for AGW, so am I, and polls indicate most of the people around the planet are also convinced. and then the fact that not a single scientific isntitution on the planet rejects AGW….
it seems you are the guys that are wrong.
(Snip. You were warned to stop posting on pressure broadening. That subject is covered extensively in the archives. Those threads are still open. Post your ‘pressure broadening’ comments there. ~mod.)
Ah. An assertion: everyone else is wrong, says not Danny the non-expert:
…most experts are convinced by the evidence for AGW, so am I
Dannyboi, who are those mythical “most experts”? See, that’s just another ‘consensus’ argument. In science, ‘consensus’ is a fallacy. But if it were not for your logical fallacies, you wouldn’t have much to say. Would you?
And:
…polls indicate…
Post links to those ‘polls’. Make sure they include your “evidence”.
not a single scientific isntitution on the planet rejects AGW… it seems you are the guys that are wrong.
May I deconstruct that nonsense? Thank you:
First, whether AGW is accepted or rejected is meaningless. Facts and evidence matter. [I personally think AGW exists, but it is so tiny that it doesn’t matter]. Without facts and evidence, your strawman argument fails.
Your assertion that “you guys are wrong” is based on what, exactly? What are we wrong about? As skeptics, what we are saying is: show us that AGW exists. Quantify it. What fraction of total global warming is AGW? Or are you just guessing?
If you can answer that question specifically, then you, Dannyboi Kuhn, will be on the short list for the Nobel Prize. But if you cannot produce a measurement of AGW, then you’re the one who is wrong — as always.
It’s up to you, Dannyboi. Post a measurement, or admit you’re wrong. Take your time, I’ll wait. It amuses me to think of you racing back to Hotwhopper or SkS for some new talking points.
“Post links to those ‘polls’. Make sure they include your “evidence”.”
i did, but the mods did not like it.
a link to a global poll.
one to a European poll
and the latest gallop poll from the US …..
[Reply: all your comments have been approved. If any were snipped the reasons are noted. ~mod.]
EdA the New Yorker
It wouldn’t have been averted. You’re talking about politicians, not rational beings. There are dozens of people tucked here and there in California’s Department of Natural Resources that know the drought cycles of the region and probably write all sorts of reports with appropriate recommendations. Politicians, given the choice of spending millions or billions for a problem that’s 20-30 years away or spending on something trendy and splashy that will help with the next election, well the practical expenditures always lose out. (Oh… and of course you must avoid the reams of negative press because you might harm one tiny delta smelt.)
Ed’s quote is the first paragraph. I actually spotted the format error in the 3 seconds it took to post. Knew it was coming. Sorry ya’ll.
[Fixed. ~mod.]
Since we know those at the very top of techno political tree do not select on technical merit as much as extra curricular skills and cooperation levels it is hardly surprising that many student are put off when they see this section method has spread to the lower echelons in this particular field. No able researcher likes to see that lack of integrity publicly displayed in their co workers.
Also surely if the science is settled there can be no long term future in that field of science would occur to all but the dimmest average person let alone any able graduate.
I try to get people here to write to heir MP and say that if climate science is settled then end all research grants in that field and close any university departments based on it.
Oh noes! Peak Climastrologists! It’s worse than we thought!
In my field I am always OK when I hear of a lack of graduates joining. It means we can charge even higher rates in the future than the obscene ones can charge today. I am not sure the same applies in this field as I suspect the demand may be declining somewhat.
That’s not how it works in academe. Think pyramid.
The science is more or less settled which means there is nothing exciting left to discover. The main challenge is turning all known science in to a model that can match history. And if you do discover something that the team does not want hear then it is all over for you.
Why would anyone want to waste their career in a field that had been so thoroughly discredited by it’s current practitioners?
$$$$$
…the average Cosmologist can tell you that “global warming” doesn’t happen without outside input changes.
With reference to your last paragraph, do you think it is any different in Cosmolgy? The only difference between the intolerance of climate skeptics and intolerance of Big Bang skeptics is that the education system does a much better job of indoctrinating potential cosmologists before they graduate, so there are less of them with PHDs.
If you think the greenhouse gasses theory is flawed, just try and reconcile Big Bang, Black Holes and Dark Matter with each other!
That’s why I describe my religion as math and physics older than I am .
I was a young Physicist, just knee-high to a cyclotron, when the 3-4 Kelvin “fingerprint” of the Big Bang was announced. Decades later it is being questioned. This is normal in science, but not judgmental. No one ever said: “Believe in the Big Bang, or else you condemn your children to a planet you consumed!”
That degree in agenda driven science might not be worth much later in life. Should’ve went with French poetry or something.
Je suis au chômage.
Max Photon,
?chômage?
John
John
John Whitman April 19, 2015 at 8:20 am
Je suis au chômage.
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#fr/en/Je%20suis%20au%20ch%C3%B4mage.
I’m unemployed
We may argue about Google’s suitability as a search engine, but I find Google Translate, and Google Earth to be virtually irreplaceable tools, although the quality of translation varies with language.
Steve P on April 19, 2015 at 10:30 am
– – – – – –
Steve P,
Thank you for the translation info.
When I googled it before asking my question I saw that all referenced links where in French and I wondered at the accuracy of the French to English translation services .
John
John Whitman April 19, 2015 at 11:59 am
John, you’re welcome, and please note that Google Translate is somewhat hidden away on the search engine interface at Google.
You have to click top right on a small icon shaped like 3×3 stacked blocks to open a window that allows you to click once more before Google Translate jumps right out at you.
As I say, it’s a valuable resource, but the best translations will always come from bilingual speakers with native fluency in both languages, if you happen to have of couple of those hanging around.
As an added bonus, you can make Google Translate speak.
The “political” and “social” aspects
are of disdain to any good scientist.
In time, empirical data will over whelm
this as a new paradigm shift occurs.
Climatologist = an involuntary practitioner of celibacy
Pachauri et al., 2014
The lecture by Professor Murry Salby given on 17 March in Westminster London proves that the CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely coming from natural sources and not from human use of fossil fuels. his lecture is now on U-Tube. It is a game changer.
What escapes many is that the study of Climate is properly the field of the Earth and Planetary Sciences and Solar Physics, while Meteorology is focussed on the physics of the atmosphere and oceans.
As it should have become increasingly clear, the intricacies of the study of the atmosphere – fascinating as they may be – do not relate to the primary causes of changing climate, but to the effect of these causes on the atmosphere and our long time weather patterns.
It is the political emphasis of the UNFCCC and WMO that has diverted a field of the earth sciences into a battle for the deck chairs of the Titanic.
Climates on the planets are a function of planetary conjunctions and and other orbital characteristics and the phases of the solar dynamo as expressed in the variations of total solar magnetic, radiative and particle flux, which is something else than TSI.
If one does not believe this, a scrutiny of papers in “Pattern Recognition in Physics” Special Issue 2013/2014 may help you on your way.
Publisher Copernicus disowned the PRP series under pressure, soon after its publication, but the 14 papers are still on the web.
This field is crying for researchers and grants to help solve the larger problem of causes of climate change.
@ afjacobs . Well said .
Climatologists get lost in the complexities of looking up thru the eddies of the atmosphere ; the issue of the mean temperature of ascribable to the energy we receive from the Sun is a function of the temperature of the Sun’s disk , the portion of the celestial sphere it subtends ( which is a function of our distance from it ) , and our two spectra — the Sun’s power spectrum , and our absorption=emission spectrum . That is , the handful of classic equations required to calculate the temperature of a croquet ball under an sunlamp .
But it is far from clear to me whether the journeyman climate scientist knows even this non-optional quantitative , experimentally testable physics .
In any case , I know of no web-accessible curriculum where the numerate layman can find even this essential classical foundation .
They are hiring climate scientists at the DNC. Climate scientist/political scientist, what’s the difference?
So I thought I ‘d take a look and see just what a degree in climate science is all about. Those who bore easily, feel free to skip this bit.
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS – degree in Meteorology and Climate science.
YEAR 1.
Candidates will be required to study the following compulsory modules:
Natural Hazards
Sustainable Development: Concepts and Case Studies
Environment and Ecology
The Atmosphere of Planet Earth
Advanced Mathematics for Environmental and Geophysical Scientists
Introduction to Meteorology and Weather Forecasting
Issues in Water Pollution Management
Environmental Science / Meteorology and Climate Science Tutorials
Introductory Earth Sciences
Optional modules may include:
Introductory Chemistry for Earth and Environmental Scientists
Intermediate Mathematics for Environmental and Geophysical Scientists
Physics for Environmental Science
Environmental Politics and Policy
YEAR 2
Candidates will be required to study the following compulsory modules:
Meteorology
Climate Change: Science and Impacts
Atmosphere and Ocean Dynamics
Environmental Research: Techniques, Principles and Practice
Computer Systems and Programming
Atmospheric Pollution from Local to Global Scales
Atmospheric Physics
Environmental Science Skills 2
Optional modules may include:
Introductory Oceanography
Water Quality
Climate Change: Society and Human Dimensions
Energy: Science and Policy
Mathematics for Geophysical Sciences 3
Mathematics for Geophysical and Environmental Sciences 4
YEAR 3
Candidates will be required to study the following compulsory modules:
Environmental Research Project
Dynamics of Weather Systems
Atmospheric Science Field Skills
Atmosphere and Ocean Climate Change Processes
Atmospheric Pollution: Causes, Impact and Regulation
Practical Weather Forecasting
Frontiers in Environmental Research
Optional modules may include:
Earth Observations from Space
Catchment Processes and Management
Earth and Environmental Sciences into Schools
Meteorology and Climate of Africa: Summer School
Oceanography in the Earth System
Strategic Energy Issues
Terrestrial Biosphere in the Earth System
I see this as very broad based, covering everything from water quality, sustainability, ecology and biospheres, atmospheres, chemistry, oceanography and mathematics. If I was a young person looking for a science career, I would dismiss this out of hand because I don’t call this a science course. Although obviously there is science in it, the science is drawn from all different disciplines. It is a patchwork of bits taken from different fields. It just doesn’t smell right.
Scientists are trained to understand one area thoroughly otherwise they cannot function as scientists. I believe most youngsters are smart enough to see they’re being sold a lemon.
Any field that has its own math and physics courses is suspect .
as a physics graduate I would pose this – why would anyone who is interested enough in the physics field to make the effort that it takes to do well in this program, wish to waste their hard work and time on what is a second rate scam filled with frauds and scientific illiterates?
Lots of funding and easy work , and for some lots of travel to, and for few political influence without having to get people to vote for you or take any responsibility .
Why would you if you’re a sharp numerate scientist? All the dregs of Earth Science and geography departments move into this discipline.
Rather, The climate field is dominated by emotionally-driven, fear-inspired, do-good-all-costs, I-want-to-do-something-that-will-have-an-impact, save-the-planet-despite-anything-else religiously-derived eco-zealots. Who can get billions of dollars for saying just that!
I think you’re right in some circumstances. Some people need a cause and those on the Left will jump on any cause that gives them – in their opinion – the opportunity to appear more righteous then everyone else (it’s really about them rather than the cause).
But I think many of the scientists in this field have very poor numeracy and poor scientific literacy (it’s a growing problem in many branches of science, I think it is particularly bad, not just in environmental sciences and physical geography, but even the Earth Sciences and Biological Sciences). When you finish your degree, but want to continue in academic life, what do you do? You look for a PhD and if there is an excess of money in one area the weaker graduates will gravitate to that field – less competition.
Even in physics and chemistry the poor students will move to “higher” science such as Earth/Biological Sciences while the bright ones will stay within their fields dealing with the hard issues.
Global warming is still the core belief of human-accelerated catastrophic climate change hypothesis. A 45 year old Ph.D. Climatologist has not observed global warming since completing her dissertation. More than half a career waiting for validation. The last decade spent waiting to show eight hottest years on record have made droughts, fires and storms more devastating. A few areas of Physics are this same way, but without the tremendous media hype and public policy expectations. This cannot be lost on young scientists just beginning their studies. How many more papers are needed that to prove changes in the range of various flora and fauna are catastrophically faster than the geologic proxies suggest?
i think this is very accurate. Why study something that you earn thousands for when you do not need to know about the subject. I think there are just some clever people who know they can study for something that has substance but can carry on pulling at the coews teats and earn a fortune.
Well, it makes sense. If the science is settled, then what does a climate scientist do? One cannot do research in a field that is cleanly buttoned up and settled. One does not research something that is researched already.
Picture Faber College (from Animal House) during rush week, and the little freshmen scientist nerds walk into the big rich frat full of sadists being run by Michael Mann, Lewandowsky, Nuccutelli and Schmidt. One little nerd scientist says he wants to study the effects of the sun or the Earth’s orbit on climate, and they walk him over to the couch to sit with the blind and crippled kids.
I think the interest level in cellulosic ethanol is also on the wane, along with syngas plants using coal.
I’m not sure if a shift to cosmology is to be welcomed:
The phycisist needs: a lab, a computer, a desk and a wastepaper basket.
The mathematician needs: a computer, a desk and a wastepaper basket
The cosmologist needs: a desk and a wastepaper basket
The climate scientist needs: a wastepaper basket.
[Rather: The climate scientist should have a wastepaper basket … but doesn’t. .mod]