Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
There is a large group of scientists who rarely express their views on climate change. They are scientists mostly working in the private sector whose ability to speak out is more limited than government scientists for two reasons. One is Upton Sinclair’s observation
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
I am not sure “understand” is fair, because many understand but often don’t have the time or the inclination. The other is that for many their salary is from some part of the demonized energy sector, which means they understand but are unable to speak.
About the closest they come to direct, or indirect expression of their opinion usually occurs without their knowledge or approval through the statements issued by their professional society. These organizations, like the national science societies were purposely co-opted by the British Royal Society to promote the deceptive and at best totally inadequate climate science of the IPCC. The battle for the voice of science societies continues as Judith Curry explains with the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Leaders of the AMS showed they are not persuaded away from their position because they enlisted George Mason University to carry out a slanted survey.
Some society members realize what is going and demand full disclosure based on science. This was the case for Professor Emeritus of Physics Hal Lewis of the University of California and the actions of the American Physical Society (APS). He knew the challenges of balance between science and society as he explained in his letter of resignation from APS.
As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists.
As he points out, it is very different today, especially with the climate issue. He wrote:
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
Professor Lewis understood clearly, but in explaining, he also indirectly identifies the challenge. He says “any real physicist, nay scientist”, but that only applies to some 20 percent of society and to only a few of them who, even if they read what was going on, would or could speak out. The challenge is to make changes in the education system so all can understand how science is corrupted without requiring a science degree.
The Challenge In Context
For 25 years I taught a Science course for Arts students that was a required credit for their degree program. Its inclusion was part of the ongoing discussion about what constitutes a traditional, well-balanced, liberal arts degree. Science students were required to take two humanities courses. It was an attempt at producing a well-rounded person with a broader context of knowledge and society. The decline of this objective is part of the shift from generalization to specialization, a trend that in my opinion is at the center of the challenge society faces over global warming. Climatology is a generalist discipline; Climate Science is an amalgam of specialists each studying one small segment of a large complex system. We saw the problems recently at the Cruz Senate Hearings with people talking but not understanding. It created a vacuum ideal for the demagoguery of Senator Markey.
Some University faculty complained about these required courses. For example, one Physics professor wanted his students to take all 15 credits in Physics for a complete degree program. The University chose to placate the complaints by creating courses that downplayed emphasis on science. I became involved in two such courses listed as Science credits. I made the course I taught about the way the Earth works for students who were future citizens of the world. I explained how they would make political decisions in a world embracing environmentalism that required a basic understanding of the science. I also worked as a teaching assistant for and later gave guest lectures in a History of Science course. Anyone who took such a course would more readily understand what is going on with the global warming deception, even if they didn’t understand the science. In the case of global warming, all they need to know about is the scientific method and how that was bypassed to achieve a predetermined result. I think the history of science should be a mandatory course in all High School programs.
If the public understood the scientific method, the challenge skeptics face today would not exist. There was no need for the appearance of climate science specialists Professors Curry, Christy and Happer before the Cruz Committee. All it would need is a person to explain how the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the AGW hypothesis. As Douglas Yates said, but few understand,
“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”
Richard Lindzen’s comment made several years ago that the consensus was reached before the research had even begun would have been unnecessary. It is a measure of the lack of public knowledge of scientific method that few understood what he meant then or now.
Some People Worked To Bridge the Gap: FOS Is One Effective Example.
Lack of scientific knowledge was one of the several problems confronting a group of mostly retired scientists in Calgary, Alberta, who were concerned about the science behind the proposed Kyoto Protocol. They decided to create an organization to inform the public of the improper scientific method used and the inadequate and inaccurate science applied. They called me, and I met with them at Calgary airport to discuss their plans. The first problem was where most of them lived, locations synonymous with the evil energy industry. Even more problematic, many of them, though now retired, worked in the “oil patch.” The issues grew from there and amounted to a history of the challenges faced by global warming skeptics and climate change deniers everywhere.
The meeting began with questions about climate to confirm that their positions were valid and worth pursuing. We then discussed the problems of communicating with a population divided between 80 percent arts and 20 percent science mindsets. The group was almost 100 percent in the science group who believe in the ideal that, properly, science is amoral and apolitical. The reality was that the Kyoto Protocol was a political response to a manufactured issue based on bad science.
The decision was taken to stick strictly with the science. I warned them about personal attacks and especially the career and money connections. I urged them to set up an arms-length funding process. They arranged this through a political scientist, Barry Cooper, at the University of Calgary. Commendably, he believed and taught that all sides of a public issue require exposure. Hence, the group formed the Friends of Science (FOS).
The group struggled but survived through the determination of a few individuals such as Albert Jacobs (still active) and Len Maier (recently passed). They were undermined, albeit unknown to most of the members, by a $12,000 donation from an energy company. That became the focal point of attacks and was instrumental in the University throwing them off campus. This is how political attacks are carried out. You find a small flaw and expand it into the justification for throwing out the entire agenda. It is why the law is fundamentally flawed. The conundrum is that nothing is perfect, but the law requires a perfect case. Defense lawyers easily find a real flaw or, more often nowadays, speculate about one sufficient to create doubt. They think it is clever, but it is the difference between the law and justice. Worse, the flaw depends on society’s prejudices. A flaw is devastating for one group but of no consequence for another. In climate, Al Gore’s major scientific errors in his movie An Inconvenient Truth continue uncorrected or even prejudicial to his political positions, while the smallest error in other documentaries is identified and exaggerated with demands for complete rejection. A similar double standard exists with funding. Government funding is neutral and without strings like money from an environmental group. Money from energy companies is, even more, perplexing. If they fund an environmental group, it is ‘clean money,’ but if it goes to a skeptics group like FOS, it is controlling and directing. None of this is new, but the contradictions and hypocrisies are stark.
Despite all the attacks FOS survived and made major contributions. They stuck with the science and produced some interesting work of their own; I am mindful of Ken Gregory’s work on the weakness of Canadian Climate models or his contribution to WUWT on climate sensitivity. In 2006, they enlisted Madhav Khandekar to prepare a list of peer reviewed anti-AGW articles to counteract Al Gore and the media touting Naomi Oreske’s argument that none existed.
They also carried out some very effective media work. For example, I wrote several short radio draft comments that were purely factual questions, such as “Did you know that CO2 is approximately 4 percent of the total greenhouse gases.” These were played in Ontario and were so effective they garnered a charge through the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) that it was political advertising. Surprisingly, the CRTC eventually rejected the charge.
Over the years FOS used much of their money to hire full-time assistants to provide continuity and do the leg work for the retired membership. It also helped the membership achieve its goal of sticking to the science by hiring a person with media and political abilities. Right now they have a first class person in Michelle Stirling, who produces excellent Press Releases, maintains an informative web page, and carries out very effective billboard advertising campaign across the country. They are effective because of the attacks from people using the false science for a political agenda.
I am very proud of my association with this group having helped them get started. Over the years, I contributed many articles, appeared on their behalf, such as at the Alberta Government hearing on Carbon Sequestration, and was honored three times as keynote speaker at their AGM. The truth is most of the contributors could have gone into peaceful retirement and avoided the abuse from political operatives Instead they chose to use their skills and knowledge to keep people informed.
This group deals with the challenge of communicating science to a predominantly arts comfortable science averse society. They are effective, as the nastiness of the attacks reflect but unlike their attackers who only seek to silence and destroy they produce valuable information for people to reach their own conclusions. They do it with a minimal budget supported by professional people who are passionate about science and the truth. In doing so, they provide a vehicle for the large group of “working scientists” essentially without a voice.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think there is an unfortunate tendency to demonize politics. Any interaction of a group beyond a few friends or family can be described as “politics”. The problem is to be good at politics and something else. Nastily, skill at politics tends to trump everything else.
I have seen a similar effect in large corporations where managers have extensive management skills (including political skills) but little understanding or skill in what they manage. In fact, places where I have worked have frowned upon having understanding or skills in the area they are managing. The thinking was that “subject matter expertise” was a crutch and made them less effective managers.
Politics takes it one step further, it is not only no longer required to have subject matter skills, but it is no longer required to have management skills. Basically we end up electing media savvy empty suits and then wonder why we get dismal results relative to the massive tax monies spent.
To Alx–the phenomenon you described is Poournelle’s law of bureauracracies, an extension of Robert Michel’s comment on politics. People tend to advance in organizations by being good at the internal politics of the group, not by being good at what the group purportedly was intended to do.
As much as I hate to say it, having extensive experience in a subject matter hobbles you in corporate advancement. If you are the head of safety and are very good and knowledgeable in safety, you only have access to a single job, the Health, Safety, and Environment manager. However, if you are a good effective manager without strong specific experience in an area, you can get promoted to any managerial position that’s available. This is why they tell people on the track for high corporate to jump around from post to post.
It’s a nasty fact of many careers that they become too good to promote. It’s the first Corollary to the Dilbert Principle
“benofhouston
January 9, 2016 at 6:22 pm
As much as I hate to say it, having extensive experience in a subject matter hobbles you in corporate advancement.”
Yes! In my years I have seen many idiots advance. Me? I usually resign.
Pardon my french but FOS is Full Of S**t
TPG
TPG January 10, 2016 at 1:41 pm says;
Pardon my french but FOS is Full Of S**t
TPG
TPG’s comment gives an example of the kind of evidence put forth by the vast majority of alarmists on the facebook FOS page. Devoid of information supporting the “full of s**t” statement, yet wants the reader to “just believe” that FOS is actually “full of s**t”. The stupidity is astounding.
The use of the word “trump” in your context is so appropriate as the Donald is the perfect example of which you speak.
If only that were so. Politics in the modern context has devolved to a quasi-celebrity model. Just as Hollywood wants a “name” to ensure some level of box office success, modern politics rely on similar name recognition.
Jeb would perform better with a campaign moniker of “J. Bush” than Jeb. But none could compete with Kardashian. It seems here in the U.S. We are proving that evolution is a bell curve and we are on the downward side.
Politics has always been ruled by the “tell them what they want to hear” methodology. Trump is a master at that, politicking at its best. When you add in sound bite mania, you can see why he does well in the polls.
Agreed. It is amazing that the electorate is not appalled by his lack of basic knowledge about our Constitution, foreign policy, world events.
To me, he is President Camacho from Idiocracy.
Of course, the other side has a leader that ignores the laws and a front runner that willfully violates them and commits treason.
Strange days we are in.
Tom I. F. and FTOP_T: It doesn’t make sense to pan Trump when you have suffered through the present administration and its trashing of the constitution through congruence with the EU and the UN new world order guys which is more Obama’s constituency than US citizens. Don’t forget that one of your best presidents (at least in my opinion) was Ronald Regan, who before the election was much vilified and marginalized by people, perhaps like yourselves. He was viewed as costarring with Bonzo as the summit of his career as a grade B movie actor. People, perhaps like yourselves, came to love this guy. He was plain speaking in the manner of what real Americans used to be about. He was tough – his first act was to fire air traffic controllers who were striking. He ordered them back to work and when they didn’t go, he began hiring new ones (the strikers had been conditioned by limp administrations who always caved and even pandered to the unions).
He resuscitated a depressed America after years of gloom from the assassination of the Kennedies through the unpopular Vietnam war, the Iran hostage crisis and rescue failure…. He made them believe in themselves again. He got the magic going again. I needn’t get into ending the cold war also on his resume.
Now, when you hear the GOP presidential hopefuls with their middle of the road, wishy-washy, the-status-quo-is- too-big-to-fail, we’ll make some changes but… Who reminds you most of Reagan among them? Who is prepared to clean the slate and put common sense and American Interests back into the design? A president doesn’t have to know as much as you think – their is an endless supply of specialist advisers. He does have to have a central philosophical position, though. He does have to be fearless in saying what needs to be said. He does have to have no truck with political correctness (that is PC). I think once he gets into office, people, perhaps like yourselves, will come to love the guy! (I admit to thinking Reagan was a Hollywood no nothing at the time. Maybe our age differences are showing).
Gary,
No doubt that the current President is the worst of the lot, a narcissist supreme with no regard for the Constitution or the rights of anyone in opposition. But Trump is the same animal. As for Reagan, he had been a Governor. In my humble opinion, anyone who does not have the experience of being a Governor will not be an effective President. As Gov Christie pointed out during the last debate when Sen Rubio and Sen Cruz were arguing who said what or voted which way, that is all that Senators do….. they debate, they argue and in the end they only cast a vote but never have to make real decisions that carry consequences. Finally the President has to deal with the opposition. You cannot fire them. The current President chooses not to work with his opposition and the results are disastrous. We do not need the same from the next President. When all the bs and sound bites die away, what we really need is someone with a record of making government work for the betterment of everyone, on both sides. There is only one who has that record, both as a Congressman and a Governor. He is a straight shooter and a reasonable man. That is who should be the Republican nominee and the next POTUS. But alas, because the mainstream media knows he would win the general election, they give him limited coverage in hopes of getting rid of him early on in the primaries. We shall see.
I think this explains Donald Trump’s success pretty well:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-science-master-persuader
keep in mind…..that’s exactly what the democrats did….and they won…twice
I am rather surprised than there are some in this forum who totally fail to understand the Trump anomaly.
A large segment of US voters believe the country is in a social and economic meltdown, and the world has become extremely violent. How did we arrive in this situation? They blame politicians, particularly career politicians, whose goals only seem to be an office in Washington with the perks and power that are attached, and nothing else. The experienced politicians running for President- J. Bush, Christie, Kucinich, Clinton, Sanders, et al – are thus the quintessential politicians responsible for the messes we are in.
We have had a Republican President with Republicans in control of the House and Senate. We have had a Democratic President with Democrats in control of the House and Senate. The results, as far as these voters are concerned, were the same: bigger government, larger national debt, and less personal freedoms.
For this group of voters, experience in government is a NEGATIVE. They want an anti-politician. Trump is TERRIBLE at politicking. He insults large groups, speaks without thinking, and is clearly not a member of the political class. That is exactly what the voters want, undeniable proof of a non-politician. Fiorini has done well at times, so has Carson, but neither are as flamboyantly un-PC as Trump. Notice the only two politicians doing well, Cruz and Rubio, have the least experience of the political group. Experienced politicians are getting less than a 10% following, combined.
Many voters look at this as an incremental process; get the career politicians out, then find competent people to run government. Because of the ruthlessness of the incumbents, you really need an (posterior orafice) to dislodge them. Trump fits that description nicely. Replacing Trump with a competent person will not be as difficult, although Trump could win the hearts of many if he were elected to Washington, took office, and said the two words to many bureaucrats that a great many voters long to hear, “You’re fired!” The first goal, though, is to rid Washington of career politicians. At this point, anything other than the status quo is acceptable.
You don’t have to agree with the voters above, but if you want to understand their vote, you need to understand what they are thinking.
The nasty thing about Trump is that someone like that might be neccessary. After all, FDR got elected four times on no coherent platform. The utter fecklessness of the establishment politicians is apparent, and there is a real desire to change that dynamic. Machine politicans tend towards Pournelle’s law, or the earlier version by Robert Michel–the internal politics of an organization tend to overcome what the group was set up to do. As the Establishment of both parties has fallen into that trap, outside forces are required.
@jtom (january 9, 2016 at 2:44 pm) I think you have been reading my mind:-)
I’m of the opinion that The Donald is actually a shill, just as McCain was. His purpose is to attract the mainstream conservative towards an essentially unelectable candidate, thereby paving the way (in McCain’s role) towards the election of Obama. Trump is the shill who will elect Hillary.
Bartleby,
You really think he’s unelectable? Have you seen the poll numbers?
DB (Stealy?) –
Unelectable only in the sense I’m concerned he won’t bring enough swing/independent votes into the game to beat Hillary. That was what got Obama elected when McCain was sent up by the Republicans. I’m very concerned Trump will be another McCain and we’ll e saddled with Hillary, which in my opinion would be a disaster of epic proportion.
Trump has both the advantage and disadvantage of having absolutely no experience with the political machine, he’s a true wildcard. I like that, but I’m terrified of the “McCain effect” sending Hillary to the White House. Truly.
@ur momisugly Bartleby,
There are 100 +- million registered voters who didn’t bother to cast their votes for …. the-lesser-of-2-evils …. in the past two General elections.
Donald Trump gives them a reason to cast their votes for POTUS 2016.
As Spike Milligan once said,
I think politics is fine between consenting adults.
The state exists to enforce non-consensual relations.
re: Trump v. Obama….
They’re pretty similar in style – populist, empty suits, and all that. Trump doesn’t need a teleprompter to utter an incoherent sentence. But the biggest different is in economic experience.
Trump has 4 bankruptcies to his credit. Obama has but one (maybe two if Obamacare stays on the books).
Richard, Trump ran a very successful very complex and large business empire. Obama was a lawyer and one time minor senator. Trump has had hundreds of successful business deals and 4 bankruptcies, a better than average score for such activities. Anyone that has had no failures is a nothing. You have to go beyond the safe to make it big. Trump likely would be a great president.
I’ll second Leonard on that point. Anyone who hasn’t fallen down isn’t skiing fast enough as we used to say on the Men’s Downhill team. Obama has never failed on his own nickle, but he’s good at failing on other people’s money. In that respect, Hillary has the same record near as I can tell so there’s no contest there.
Trump’s disadvantage is also his greatest strength; he’s a wildcard apparently beholden to no one. The entire question then comes down to his honesty, his ideals and his intelligence. He doesn’t have a machine.
Personally I prefer Paul’s ideals and Cruz’ savvy. I think a Cruz/Paul ticket would be ideal.
Hmmm….demonize politics. Human interaction is one thing – and you are quite right – that is politics.
The more dangerous form of politics is at the point of a gun. This describes all governmental politics, regardless of the legitimacy of the state. Governments have the moral monopoly on the use of power and it is very important that is not abused. Governments have an enormous possibility of acting demonically. Governments may have social skills, however minimal, but their real power comes from guns and force.
Bureaucracies are one thing, Bureaucracies with lawyers, guns and money (unlimited thanks to the printing presses) are quite another. RIP Warren Zevon.
John writes: “Governments may have social skills, however minimal, but their real power comes from guns and force.”
Hear, hear. This essential truth is why the US was never meant to have a standing army and why the 2nd amendment exists. The use of force should always rest with the people, if it is any way “owned” by any organization other than the people themselves, t is both illegitimate and a threat to liberty. Eisenhower was and still is right on that topic.
How can it be science if these scientists ignore (or reject) the scientific method?
Dr. Ball – FOS is very effective on Facebook. Impressive achievement to form a group such as FOS to inform based on science. It sure messes with the global warming cult however.
“This group deals with the challenge of communicating science to a predominantly arts comfortable science averse society.”
===========
Gotta hate society, if only they would all fall into line…..
When it comes to those who are adverse to the medical science of vaccination, it is their own offspring’s health and wellbeing they endanger.
You ever read the side effects of some of the new drugs out there ?
Some of them list “death” as a side effect, thank the FDA for that one.
I guess I just don’t like to be communicated at.
I’m in favor of vaccination. The benefits far outweigh the risks. However new drugs are a whole ‘nother issue.
I have to take a number of drugs for different kinds of medical problems. From this I’ve discovered how pharmaceuticals really work. It ultimately boils down to the following question: Which part(s) of your body do you want to poison, and how much, to benefit others? I really don’t have the option of not taking any medications, but that question is quite helpful in deciding which to take or not. And being relatively new, where there hasn’t been a lot of time to discover adverse effects, is a negative consideration.
It’s also helpful to know that many “breakthrough” drugs aren’t. See http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
“When it comes to those who are adverse to the medical science of vaccination, it is their own offspring’s health and wellbeing they endanger.”
– and their their friends and neighbours that are likewise anti-vaccination
– and the babies of all their friends and neighbours that are too young to be vaccinated yet
– and the children at the childcare centre that they bring their diseased offspring to
– and cancer patients, HIV-positive people, etc that have weak immune systems.
“Better living through chemistry”.
To me, any person who just gives blanket approval to anything with the word ‘Vaccine’ written on the vial, is unscientific about the matter. As in, brainwashed.
I think that’s called natural selection. Suffering through the fifties and sixties with measles, mumps, chicken pox, and having school friends suffer polio, whooping cough and other not so common diseases like small pox, I didn’t hesitate to put my family through the vaccine scheme. I still have the influenza vaccine every year for the past 15 years, as I am aware it may kill me if I don’t.
Thank goodness for science and medicine. The world would be a better place if the vast amount wasted on a non existent threat of climate change, instead was spent on preventing diseases like malaria, ebola, encephalitis, meningitis and other rarer diseases.
Blind faith is blind faith, folks. You have no freaking idea what’s in the conglomerations you are giving blanket approval for, and demonizing others for daring to lack your level of blind faith, it appears to me.
No pharmaceutical company would even make vaccines after the early fiascoes, until they were granted immunity for any damages their products might cause. Yet, all sorts of folks who are otherwise prone to skepticism think nothing of issuing unconditional endorsement of concoctions not yet even in existence . . simply because they will be labeled ‘vaccine’.
Brqainwashing I say.
Science doesn’t matter.
It was an argument… once … for the redistribution of wealth. Another excuse will be found. Making a scientific case against CAGW will not stop the Malthusian Marxists. That is such a yesterday tactic.
I suggest leaping ahead of the UN-lead march to world-wide Marxism and begin rounding up the socialists and seizing their property and housing them all in collectives, where they will be happy. Collectives with high walls, lots of pot, Doritos, p0rn and x-boxes. That is what they want.
Let the purge begin.
Gee, Paul, your solution really doesn’t sound all that different than the Agenda 21 program. Of course Agenda 21 doesn’t leave any room for modern industrial society or intellectual honesty.
100 % right Paul….I think they use to be called Insane Asylums !! Time to bring them back, the liberals of the world need a new home !
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
` Arthur C Clarke
Sadly, we have arrived. Our children are growing up in a world run by magic. Flip a switch and there’s light. Press a button, and the TV turns on. H*ll, you don’t even have to press a button anymore on the newer stuff, you can just tell it to turn on. No one knows how to count change anymore, the till calculates it automatically. Well, that’s assuming you use cash, most people use these cards they can just tap and the money is magically whisked out of their bank accounts. Go to the grocery store and it is fully stocked with food. Not matter how much you buy, when you come back the next day, the shelves will have been fully restocked. Magic. Need to talk to someone? Just say “call” and the person’s name, and you will be connected.
The current generation doesn’t ask how these things work, or even marvel at the fact that the do. On a visit to a remote farming area, a young lady tried to make a cell phone call. When I explained that there was no cell phone coverage in the area, she demanded to know “how is that even possible?”
At the time, I was amused. Now I read Tim’s articles and I realize I should instead be terrified.
‘ Flip a switch and there’s light. ‘ aka a dark sucker switch. Sucking the dark out of a room.
A friend of mine invented a “flashdark,” a device that would make a room dark, but fit in your pocket. It was quite impressive. Unfortunately, he turned the prototype on once, then dropped it and never found it.
It’s going to be very educational when the next “Carrington Event” occurs or the Cascadia “big one” hits. The survivors, at least, will probably be wondering why so much money and effort was being squandered on the CAGW phantasmagoria instead of preparing for much more probable threats.
No new fears please
Here’s a new fear: in parts of Europe stores are now using facial recognition technology to identify shoppers outside the store. When they enter the store an employee greets them by name…
…coming to the US of A in the near future.
Oops, you said no new fears. Sorry.
db, I was very surprised during my visit to the DMV. The computer did not recognize my new photo as being the same person as my record photo (8 yrs old) . After another photo that didn’t register correctly the friendly civil servant had to get a second signature to override the bad photo recognition (maybe DMV doesn’t have the state of the art stuff … may be my ears have gotten bigger…); the photo recognition is already here … question is where/how is it being used/shared.
A nice DMV hacking could definitely be a boon for someone.
It’s always been that way, David. The condition you describe is nothing new. Scientists and engineers constitute maybe 2 percent of the population. Add in competent business people, and get 5%. Those are the people who create, who innovate, and who keep things running.
Everyone else just does their job; those who do skill jobs are generally competent. We can be grateful for that, and for the fact that the US and western societies are generally non-corrupt.
Skills of the past are always forgotten. We just have to make sure that they’re never again needed. That’s what the fight against the AGW irrationalists is all about.
Thank you Dr. Ball both for this article and for your enormous contribution to getting the truth in front of people.
I do not have a scientific background, so I try to explain why CAGW is a scam in the simplest way possible (hope I’ve got it right!).
I start by explaining how Climategate exposed the Team’s panic over BBC Paul Hudson’s article “Whatever happened to global warming” which first brought the PAUSE into the open to the general public. then I explain the Team predicted the satellite data which began in 1979, which covers the entire earth, would be more accurate than the surface temps which rely on relatively few thermometers, often placed in Cities where UHI plays a part. I then explain it is the satellite data that records the PAUSE, while the Team has continued to focus on the surface temps. (a lot of people, including MSM talk-show sceptics, are unable to get this across to their friends/listeners, who are confused as to why the PAUSE can be refuted and “hottest year ever” claims continue to made on a regular basis.)
then I point to the increased electricity prices and insurance premiums, both of which include portions alegedly related to CAGW these days, electricity explicitly and insurance premiums by way of association with “extreme weather events”, which the MSM constantly tells the public is a result of CAGW. these increases in the cost of living resonate with most people I speak to.
here’s yet another example of money going to CAGW “science” from a Foundation with a conflict of interest:
8 Jan: Eureka Alert: New Carl Zeiss Professorship will focus on environmental modeling of the climate system
The Carl Zeiss Foundation has agreed to provide funds for a new endowed professorship in the field of environmental and climate modeling at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU). With the help of so-called Earth system models, the prospective holder of this professorship will investigate atmospheric chemical and microphysical processes within the climate system. The results will provide a scientific basis for political and socio-economic decision-making about environmental and climate-related issues. The Carl Zeiss Foundation, which is the sole shareholder of ***SCHOTT AG in Mainz and Carl Zeiss AG in Oberkochen, will fund the endowed professorship with a total of EUR 1,195,000 over the next five years…
There is a broad consensus that the current global climate change is predominantly a result of human activity over the last 150 years. A key factor in this context are the emissions of greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide…
In addition to interdepartmental cooperation within Mainz University, the endowed professorship will also collaborate with non-academic research institutions such as the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), and the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam.
This is the second endowed professorship sponsored by the Carl Zeiss Foundation to be set up at JGU…
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/jgum-ncz010716.php
***Wikipedia: Schott AG
SCHOTT solar
In 2009, Schott inaugurated a US$100 million state-of-the-art solar manufacturing facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA to build receivers for concentrated solar thermal power plants (CSP) and 64 MW of photovoltaic modules. They had already been making 15 MW of photovoltaics annually in Billerica, Massachusetts, until the factory was closed in 2009…In 2008, Schott said that it planned to produce crystalline PV cells and modules with a total of 450 MW annually. It also planned to produce thin-film PV wafers with a capacity of 100 MW…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schott_AG
the CAGW crowd would have no problem with this.
I try to use the KISS method.
I start by telling those who have bought the hype, the theory. Man is increasing the CO2 and this is trapping heat and raising the temperature of the planet. According to scientists! a 50% increase should raise the temperature by at least 1C. Most recently, this increased temperature has been found in the oceans (see Karl).
To learn how this works, open a can of soup and pour it into a bowl. Human exhaled breath has a CO2 concentration 1,000 times the atmosphere. That is a lot of CO2 heating power. To prove the theory, just blow on your cold soup until the temperature increases 33C. When you give up and put it on your natural gas stove, you have graduated from the CAGW pseudo-science and your free from worrying about your carbon footprint.
FTOP_T,
Good one. I like to ask ’em: what’s the percentage of “carbon” in the air? Even if they’re science literate they don’t get it right, because I didn’t ask how much “CO2” is in the air. Yes, it’s a trick question, but I want to know if the person I’m talking with knows more about the subject than what they get from TV.
More than half either don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, or they give an outrageous number, trying to wing it. Those are fun.
If they understand (400 ppm CO2; 0.04%), then I have about a hundred different arguments and counter-arguments because of reading WUWT. I’ve been able to out-debate everyone so far. In some cases, it doesn’t make me a new BFF…
DB,
I am shocked how many people think this is all about CO and not CO2. They are confused because the media calls CO2 a pollution and they know you can die from carbon monoxide poisoning. I have had a difficult time convincing some people the government is trying to regulate the primary ingredient in photosynthesis.
H.L. Mencken rings truer every day.
Where are the history of science and logic courses. The public should at least be able to recognize logical fallacies if not the science. You gotta Learn the structure of thinking.
Some society members realize what is going ” ON ” and demand full disclosure based on science. ??
The IPCC is part of the cult of CAWG.
The purpose, driving force of ‘science’ is to solve problems. Scientists changes their theory/model when it is proven incorrect by observations and analysis. Scientists acknowledge observational paradoxes that invalidate the standard theory.
How many paradoxes are required to change a scientific theory? Only one paradox is required, however in the case of CAGW, the theory has become akin to a religion and is hence sacrosanct, unchangeable, at least until there is in your face observation of abrupt cooling which the public and media will demand an explanation for.
There are more than 50 independent observations that support the assertion that the entire scientific basis of the IPCC report is incorrect. The most obvious observational fact is the ‘pause’ in warming, the end of warming, the lack of warming for more than 18 years.
The objective of the IPCC is to support the cult of CAGW’s agenda, not determine based on current and past observations if there is or is not a CAGW problem to solve. The IPCC has ignored, hidden, and suppressed peer reviewed paleo and recent data and analysis that unequivocally supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes and the majority of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to the warming of the ocean and increased deep earth release of low C13 CH4, rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The entire scientific basis of the IPCC reports, including the IPCC’s general circulation modes (GCM) is incorrect.
Lastly observations support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted which is different that a slowdown of the solar cycle. It appears we are going to experience abrupt Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling followed by a Heinrich event. There is a physical reason for the glacial/interglacial cycle. It is an observational fact that interglacial periods end abruptly, not gradually.
The cyclic warming and cooling events in the paleo record have the same periodicity and come in a medium version. Paleo researchers have named the cyclic warming and cooling after not surprisingly paleo climate researchers. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle which is also called a Bond event which is every 1500 years with a beat plus or minus 500 years) and the longer period (roughly every 10,000 years) Heinrich event which is a super large version of the Dansgaard-Oeschger event. The super large cooling Heinrich events, can and do terminate interglacial periods.
It is an observational fact that all of the past interglacial period ended abruptly and had a duration of less than around 12,000 years. The last Heinrich event the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event occurred 11,900 years ago at which time summer solar insolation at 65N has maximum. During the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than the a decade. The Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event lasted for 1200 years.
The cyclic warming and cooling of the Antarctic peninsula correlates with the amount of sea ice around the Antarctic continent, in a complicated manner as the Antarctic ice sheet itself slightly cools when the Greenland Ice Sheet warms as the albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is slightly higher than low level clouds. The phenomena where the Antarctic ice sheet cools when the Greenland ice warms which is what was observed in the last 50 years is called the polar see-saw which is a bit confusing as the see-saw is only the Greenland Ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1257
I was really interested until the second graph as by then I had several new Facebook comments that took my attention away from the rest of your facts. Did you know there is a really cute, adorable, cat playing a violin – ‘friend’ me and I’ll send it to you.
Oooh! Look, a cloud
In my experience, after stating one or two anti-AGW facts, most people’s attention wanders off onto other subjects of more immediate concern to themselves.
Thanks you, FOS, for persisting in exposing both the lies and the truth
@RalphDaveWestfall
It’s going to be very educational when the next “Carrington Event” occurs or the Cascadia “big one” hits. The survivors, at least, will probably be wondering why so much money and effort was being squandered on the CAGW phantasmagoria instead of preparing for much more probable threats.
No they won’t. They will be told that Climate Change is responsible, and forced to pay even more money to the fraudsters.
I have seen no sign whatsoever that ‘society’ is wiseing up to this scam. Instead, I simply see continual acceptance that ‘there are problems and we must pay’. In the UK, one result of the latest flooding is that farmers are to be paid by taxpayers to let their lands flood. Is this acceptance, or what?
This detour of science has always been about believing what authority predicts, rather than believing your own eyes and experiences.
this story mirrors the bad science of agw-
“Cholesterol: How a now discredited diet theory became a national mania”
http://linkis.com/financialpost.com/EAAs7
Yes, it mirrors the thinking that before man gained technology he lived a long disease-free life like Methuselah.
Yet another fine essay from Dr. Ball.
It is the tossing of the scientific method into the waste bin of history that will be the legacy of this era. This unfortunate event is not restricted to climate “science” but includes most fields of what used to be science. Some people predicted that as science became dependent on large government organizations and money it would be damaged. This prediction has come true in all fields.
Someday as the temperatures drop globally to levels that can not be papered over by the con artists at the federal agencies pretending to keep scientific times series of planetary temperatures, mankind will finally have to look back and ask “who came up with CO2 warms the surface by 33 degrees and can fry the planet if it goes much over 4 percent of of total greenhouse gasses?”. The whole thing looks to me like trying to sell a bottle of pee as “medicine”.
Science, ye died too soon. 🙁 (or maybe science is only really, really sick?)
+1000 (see Eisenhower)
Uh-oh. Dr. Ball had better be careful, or the keepers of “the science” are going to “document his activities”, call him out, and drag him out from “the shadows” for all to see. Then he’ll be sorry. Because people will see that this is what we do to people who tell the truth – try to shame and intimidate them into silence.
Oh wait.
Those billboards get people talking. They should do that in other cities. Calgary is not just Canada’s oil & gas capital, it’s also the conservative heartland of the country. These billboards need to go up in other areas of the country (and especially the U.S.)
Update for Bernie: The NDP (socialist) party is in power in Alberta. Ironically, the massive influx of new people, many from the high unemployment Atlantic provinces to meet demand for oilworkers, particularly the oil sands processing, would appears to have been the tipping point that changed Alberta from a century of conservative leadership to socialist without a step in between. I thought getting all those jobs in the oil patch would change the politics of these newcomers, but no. When it comes to politics, who you were born to seems to be more important than where your self interests lie.
There is evidence to suggest that Albertans quickley realized their mistake. During the federal election, Alberta was mainly blue. One Liberal (red) and only one NDP (orange) ridings.
Every Art’s student should be required to read Ottawa’s Carleton University Professor Michael Harts new book “Hubris”. This book published in late 2015 is a must read.
http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Troubling-Science-Economics-Politics/dp/0994903804
I’m just happy they grabbed the “Friends of Science” moniker before the Climate Liars did. It really seems to rankle them. Fun.
Educating the next generation is going to be difficult. The Colleges of Education in the United States have developed a philosophy I call anti-informational teaching. This philosophy states in short that one doesn’t need to know anything to successfully teach a subject. Looking at the curriculum of a typical College of Education, you will find a large number of course offerings on the theory of teaching, but very little on the teaching of a subject. (with the exception of early childhood reading courses – but for some reason very few are based around centuries tested phonics techniques)
My experience in working with the students in these colleges leads me to an unwelcome conclusion that only about 5% of graduates from these colleges should be allowed anywhere near a classroom. 50% are dense as bricks and the other 45% are apathetic slackers who were just looking for an easy credential to get a job. The 5% usually are dual majored in some STEM field and education and thus had to actually know something real, yet had a strong desire to educate.
We once had a physics professor in tears at mid-terms because in her physical science course (taken almost exclusively by education and liberal arts majors), none of the education majors (80% of the class) had turned in the take-home portion of the mid-term. When she checked farther, she found that the education majors also failed to turn in 90% of the homework assignments. She was not yet tenured and was seriously worried that failing 80% of the class would cut her teaching career short.
What can you do when the students are so used to being spoon fed every morsel that they won’t get off the tails and at least go through the motions of learning? Worse, how can we trust someone who isn’t putting out the effort as a student now to lead students to knowledge in the classrooms of the future?
This has long been a problem with Colleges of Education. They want to teach teachers how to teach, but not WHAT to teach. The solution would be to dissolve all such Colleges and instead require teachers to get a Bachelor degree in the field they want to teach (math, English, social studies). I can dream, can’t I?
Not so very long ago women were only allowed post secondary education in teaching, nursing and bookkeeping.
These fields drew the smartest women but today the smartest women are allowed to be doctors, dentists, engineers, accountants and etc. Result is the lowering of academic standards in the schools. Check the SAT scores for education majors.
Major in your teaching field used to be required for high school teachers with minor in education.
What passes for science courses for teachers is another problem.
My brother teaches a basic physics course for non science majors at UConn. For each new class he gives them a quiz on simple science and history to see where these students stand. So many students answers have been so ridiculously wrong that now it is just a source of amusement to him.
Owen. I worked with high school grads in the USAF. We were to repair the instrument and autopilot systems of the F111. We had about 90 people in our group. About 1/3 of them would break things they were trying to fix. Another 1/3 couldn’t fix fix anything but they didn’t break anything because they didn’t try to fix anything. Fortunately the remaining could fix things. I oftentimes wondered if this was the way of the world or just my experience.
James,
I started out doing a similar job on F-4s, C-130, and A-10s. The newbies coming out of tech school were about 20% useless, 40% basically would do what you told them to do and nothing more and 40% were people who came in wanting to know what the most unusual break report was because that was the one they wanted. The 20% should have been cashiered out but we could almost never get the chain of command to agree. The ones that did only what they were told we mostly thanked for their service and sent them back home at the end of their enlistments. The last 40% we struggled like crazy to retain. I think a breakdown similar to that is probably true throughout society in every field of endeavor.
Unfortunately, in an academic environment the 20% seems drawn to education as a major.
FYI Dr. Mailbach is again polling AMS members about “climate change”. This time his poll allows for dissenting views regarding AGW, but there are still biases in the questions. And the poll starts out with the AMS’ definition of ‘climate change’ that is so general that no one would not agree with it (unless you don’t think the weather ever changes.) So look forward to a future paper from Geo Mason U with press headlines “99% of AMS scientists believe climate change is real.”
Isn’t there another theory that the Younger Dryas was caused by the flooding caused by the release of the Laurentian Glacial Lake – pouring into the St Lawrence and out to the Atlantic Ocean where fresh water, mixing with sea water likely would have shut down the Gulf Stream portion of the current conveyor belt?
Thank you, Dr. Ball. Brings to mind the recent Alberta conference on carbon pricing. Public input was requested before the new socialist government went to Paris to feel part of the crowd. At any rate, I went to one of these to talk to the available commission members. One of them responded to my question: if climate change is such a big deal, what happened during the Roman warm period or the Medieval warm period? To my surprise his answer was: (paraphrased) I am not interested in history! These are the folks that make decisions on my behalf. Heaven help us.
In 2008 Joe D’Aleo posted an article on icecap.US with graphs demonstrating global cooling occurring since 2002 in spite of the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/
This means that the world was already cooling on December 17, 2002 when Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change for the sole stated purpose of stopping global warming.
Ratification was unanimously approved by the Liberals BQ and NDP but opposed by the official opposition led by Stephen Harper.
In April 2008 I wrote to the leader of the NDP Jack Layton apprising him of the fact that the world was cooling in spite of increasing CO2 emissions and challenging the legitimacy of his party’s position on the legitimacy of climate change as represented by IPCC Summary for Policy Makers when empirical evidence demonstrates that all IPCC claims are patently false.
This is the response that I got:.
Note that Layton only refers to the “synthesis Report” as part of the full report so his only information is what is left after the UNEP censors have removed any (all) scientific information which refutes IPCC Climate Change dogma:
“We also pay heed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body that consists of over 2,000 scientists from more than 100 nations around the world. Their assessments on climate change are peer-reviewed. You can find out more about the work of the IPCC, including, “The Synthesis Report” released on November 17th, as part of a full report, Climate Change 2007. See: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ”
Note the commentary on Friends of Science
The Friends of Science have been thoroughly discredited due to their questionable connections and funding sources: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science and http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html.
Also Note the “scientific” sites referenced:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/Economy_At_Risk.asp.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
From: Layton, Jack – M.P. [mailto:Layton.J@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: May-29-08 1:32 PM
Subject: NDP on the legitimacy of climate change
We are writing further to your recent email challenging the legitimacy of global warming and climate change as serious environmental problems. We appreciate your comments – even your criticisms.
The federal NDP holds a different view on this matter. We are committed to pushing for decisive action to curb climate change and to meet our international obligations.
We also pay heed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body that consists of over 2,000 scientists from more than 100 nations around the world. Their assessments on climate change are peer-reviewed. You can find out more about the work of the IPCC, including, “The Synthesis Report” released on November 17th, as part of a full report, Climate Change 2007. See: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Many climate change skeptics are not even climate scientists – they’re from other fields such as geology or oceanography. Which may help explain the litany of false information that is spread on this issue. And we have heard it all. The following are just a few of the points raised by some and our responses:
– Canadians will have to choose between the environment or the economy
It is now clear that we have the technology and money to decisively act in time to avoid a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm and http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/Economy_At_Risk.asp.
– Climate change is not occurring
Don’t believe the IPCC reports? Fair enough. That does not change the fact that there is indeed a consensus on climate change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686.
– documentaries such as “The real global warming swindle” expose the massive fraud on citizens
The only swindle here is the one perpetrated by it’s maker: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece.
– reports from the “Friends of Science” and fellow travelers
The Friends of Science have been thoroughly discredited due to their questionable connections and funding sources: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science and http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html.
And, we could go on. However, the following websites thoroughly address all other arguments against climate change.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
Although we may have to agree to disagree on this matter, we appreciate the time you have taken to register your views. All the best.
Sincerely,
Office of Jack Layton
NDP Leader
Via my local pollie I asked for a few examples of AGW that Australia’s latest Prime Minister said there was evidence of when he made his grand speech in Paris. Just a few examples was all I asked for. The response was vacuous and didn’t mention as single thing that could have related to some climate effect. All I got was the “we accept the IPCC conclusion on climate change, blah, blah, blah..” If everyone hounded their representative whenever they made a definitive assertion about AGW maybe they would get sick of the nagging and either answer the questions factually or realize that there is no factual answer that can be supported. Persistence is very necessary.
We can’t win the debate of our scientists against theirs, FOS vs IPCC. Though using authority is a logical fallacy, it is plausible in political debate.
Instead we should look at the facts and reference to the original research. Quite often we can use IPCC itself, just interpret the data differently. No hockey sticks but robust presentation graphics. How can you say 0,5 C change is a catastrophe? Explain why satellite data is more reliable that temperature record?
Thanks, Dr. Ball.
You are right, I think, in advocating for the understanding of science among all educated people, especially for the arts-educated, as they would require the most help.
I’m not wishing for a world of scientists, but for a world where art appreciates science and science appreciates art.
Richard Lindzen has a firm grasp of the role of the philosophy of science within the necessary broader philosophical context. He has an understanding of the history of the philosophy of science as well as an understanding of the history of philosophy in general.
He is my choice for an intellectual leader of the new climate-focused science renaissance.
John