This was a bit of a surprise, hat tip to Bucko36 – Anthony
In Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss
By Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut in July/August 2008 Issue of Launch Magazine. http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Cunningham writes:
“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused” warming
“[James] Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.”
BIO Note: Physicist Walter Cunningham, an award-winning NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and Navy Astronaut Wings, the 1969 Haley Astronautics Award and named to Named to the International Space Hall of Fame. Cunningham is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He also worked as a scientist for the RAND Corporation prior to joining NASA. While with RAND, he worked on classified defense studies and problems of the earth’s magnetosphere. He has accumulated more than 4,500 hours of flying time, including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft and 263 hours in space.
For Complete bio see: http://www.waltercunningham.com/introduction.htm
Excerpts:
It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him. […] NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics. […] I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.
[…] The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels. Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
[…] The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.
Full Text at link below:
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kcom: “The bottom line is you (AGW advocates) are proposing a hypothesis regarding the future.”
Not exactly. AGW theory claims that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by at least a third over the past 150-200 years, mostly due to human activity. This CO2 increase has in turn caused atmospheric temperatures to rise, which is causing other changes associated with the earth’s climate system.
These factors are measurable and concern the past and the present. So it is not the case that AGW theory is only about the future. The evidence is plentiful, and it is available now.
Some people do not accept that the evidence points to global warming. That’s OK. But anyone who wants to dispute AGW needs to understand what it is they are disputing.
As I read Andrew W, I notice something that I’ve noticed of others commenting from the Pro AGW side, as well. When talking about CO2 outgassing, reabsorbtion, etc, they seem to assume that the biosphere is stablil. It is NOT. The biosphere is a main feedback to CO2 levels. It’s been shown that plant growth has increased in the last few years. I think a primary mistake that these folks are making is assuming a static insteasd of a dynamic system. Does anyone doubt that biological systems on Earth are extremely dynamic? We are releasing CO2 that was sequestered by plants long ago. They will sequester it again.
Wow, there was some terrible spelling in that post. My apologies.
I accidentally submitted the comment below with the wrong name and email address (it was auto-filled). Can you delete the previous one and use this one? Thanks.
– – – –
“Kcom seems to be defining AGW as if and when “the Earth’s average temperature rises 10 degrees and the oceans rise 50 feet and all the predicted “disasters” come to pass.”
“My personal position is that AGW is real, and is based on good science, but that assumptions that it must or will lead to catastrophic changes in climate are likely to some extent to be ideological based exaggerations.”
Yes and yes.
I’m criticizing the use of the term “denialist” or “denier” by those rabid AGW proponents who refuse to recognize that their predictions for a catastrophic future are conclusions about future events (based on highly complex theories, computer models, and data sets) and not directly observable facts. They have an opinion on what the data means (or they’ve borrowed one from someone else) and lost sight of the fact that in such a complex system other possible conclusions exist using those same data. Other people who don’t believe their particular interpretation (or don’t believe they’ve made their case sufficiently rigorously) should rightly be called skeptics. Using the term “denialist” in this context is one aspect of the bullying nature of catastrophic AGW proponents when promoting their view. (Another example being: “The debate is over.”)
Do you think anybody would even care or be commenting except for a few atmosphere nerds if the proposition was that CO2 would double or triple or quadruple or whatever and have absolutely no effect on the planet? Those throwing around the term denialist in a pejorative way are exactly the people who have a political axe to grind, who do seem to operate on the assumption that if AGW is true to any extent, then a catastrophic outcome is the only possible one. They are all about “ideological based exaggerations”, not just to “some extent”. “We have 10 years to save the planet” and claims like it have no basis in science that I can see. Show me the formula or calculation that yields the result of 10 years and not 20, or 50 or 500, or 16 months. And tell me exactly what “save the planet” means. It’s blather. And people who don’t buy the blather somehow become “denialists”.
Until they happen, all the catastrophic predictions are just that, predictions. They may come true, they may not, but that doesn’t change the fact that at this point in time they are predictions and not real events. (Aren’t we still waiting on that all-but-inevitable global cooling from the ’70s?) Those people who think they know the answer to everything should take a serious humility lesson. And you can be sure that those who won’t aren’t in it for the science, but are rather in it for the politics. They see their opportunity to run other people’s lives as they see fit and they’re grabbing for it with all the gusto they can muster. There’s always been a tendency for certain people to act that way. Catastrophic global warming alarmism is just the latest manifestation.
Well said Kcom.
But while the people you refer to are the most visible section of AGW proponents and their views are widely disseminated across the MSM, I think in general the science community (Hansen is becoming a notable exception, he’s getting old and too political) has a far more conservative view on the consequences of AGW, if you visit blog sites supporting the IPCC position, (Deltoid, Realclimate, Tamino, etc) you’ll find almost nothing on future disasters, on those blogs it’s all about getting whats happening now right, there’s much more caution about what’s going the happen in 50 years, and in fact thats rarely commented on.
One political result of their enthusiasm is that many people have seen this whole issue being dragged into politics – which was inevitable – and have adopted a political responce, many people have adopted the position that AGW = future disasters, and are attacking anything that supports AGW = enhanced GH effect as well.
So what happens next? The “science” put forward on sites like this one comes under the scrutany of the people who do the real science, and it’s found wanting.
If you look through this thread you’ll find nobody has had much of a rebuttel to my points about the 95% claim, or the 1934 warmest year claim, and Cunningham’s article contained plenty more “hogwash” as a Texan would say.
The politics all comes down to human nature, we have an instinct to see the very worst in those we disagree with.
Heres a flow diagram:
1. 1896 Arrhenius proposes Greenhouse Effect Theory, makes observation that if Man were to increase CO2 concentrations this would warm the planet
2. Throughout the 20th century Man increases CO2 concentrations.
3. Scientists become interested in the climate effects of changes, they measure a warming of the planet say they expect long term climatic changes that may be negative but needs more study.
4. Here be dragons. Whole issue becomes a political football, Doom Mongers claim climate disasters in future.
5. Conservative political thinkers react to Doom Mongers, attack climate catastrophies claims, but also attack the entire basis for AGW.
6. Science guys get hot under the collar at attacks on science, and on them. Point out faults in BS science being disseminated by “denialists”, some start to be pushed towards, close ranks, with Doom Mongers.
7. Conservative political thinkers return fire.
Well, that’s how wars get started.
Andrew says:
“Glenn the abstract you link to is entitled:
“Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models”
ie it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth.
Do you have something from a scientifically authorative source supporting the 95% claim?”
You seem to think Gavin is an authoratative source, enough to claim that the “95%” claim is “just plain wrong”. Interestingly, your “explanation” that the paper addresses what is “escaping from the Earth” does not match Gavin’s claim, which I have made available below. At least he speaks about greenhouse effects, absorption of different spectrums of “downwelling” radiation and ozone, instead of stuff escaping from the Earth.
He quotes the DOE, not the abstract, nor does he appear to have read the article itself, or if he had, did not actually quote from it. So I have the DOE article referencing a peer reviewed journal article, and you have some guy named Gavin on a blog saying “nuh uh”. And that makes the claim “just plain wrong” in your mind?
References:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/index.php?p=367#comment-21829
“As speculated above, the key reference for the DOE statement is Freidenreich and Ramaswamy (JGR, 1993). However, the appendix authors appear to have made an understandable but significant error. FR93 are discussing the absorbtion of downwelling SOLAR Near-IR by H2O and CO2 – that is the shortwave part of the spectrum (the 4.3, 2.7 and 2 micrometer bands). The key factor for the roles of H2O and CO2 as greenhouse gases is of course the long wave spectrum (i.e. 12-18 micrometers, 10 and 7.6 micormeters). The problematic statement regarding the relative roles:
“Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor.”
refers ONLY to the solar radiation absorbtion, not the long wave absorbtion (which is much larger), and doesn’t take into account ozone in any case, which is by far the dominant term in the stratosphere (particularly between 15 and 20km). Thus, I am inclined to stand by my calculations in the water vapour post which concur with the Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) results. I will email the DOE website and see if I can’t get a correction made.”
The paper:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/1993/smf9301.html
“Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models”
“Freidenreich, S. M., and V. Ramaswamy, 1993: Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(D4), 7255-7264.”
“Abstract: Line-by-line (LBL) solar radiative solutions are obtained for CO2-only, H2O-only, and CO2 + H2O atmospheres, and the contributions by the major CO2 and H2O absorption bands to the heating rates in the stratosphere and troposphere are analyzed. The LBL results are also used to investigate the inaccuracies in the absorption by a CO2 + H2O atmosphere, arising due to a multiplication of the individual gas transmissions averaged over specific spectral widths (delta v). Errors in absorption generally increase with the value of delta v chosen. However, even when the interval chosen for averaging the individual gas transmissions is the entire solar spectrum, there is no serious degradation in the accuracy of the atmospheric absorbed flux (error < 3%) and the heating rates (errors 40%). This parameterization is modified such that the resulting errors are less than 20%. When this modified CO2 parameterization is combined with a recently modified formulation for H2O vapor absorption, the resulting errors in the heating rates are also less than 20%. The application of the modified solar absorption parameterizations in a general circulation model (GCM) causes an increase in the simulated clear sky diabatic heating rates, ranging from nonnegligible (middle stratosphere and lower troposphere) to significant (lower stratosphere and upper troposphere) additions. The results here should enable a continued use of the older broadband parameterizations in GCMs, albeit in modified forms.”
Glenn, please read your own comment above carefully, as Gavin (and I) say, the Freidenreich and Ramaswamy (JGR, 1993) paper addresses absorption of SOLAR radiation coming down (down welling) as opposed to longer wave (IR) radiation moving upwards.
You state “Interestingly, your “explanation” that the paper addresses what is “escaping from the Earth” does not match Gavin’s claim…”
What I said – refering to the Freidenreich and Ramaswamy (JGR, 1993) paper – was: “ie it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth”
How the hell can you turn that around and claim I was saying F&R (1993) was refering to “infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth”??
And no one has claimed anything about stuff escaping from the Earth as far as I can tell, except you. It either came from you or someone else. Who, Andrew? Gavin? The paper? The GAO article?
It’s valid to assume you meant that the Freidenrich paper should have considered infrared radiation escapting from the Earth. That is, it would be a valid assumption if one assumed you were being honest and had at least a basic understanding of the issue.
Yes, the paper addresses absorption of downward solar radiation, and I’ve already explained that. Gavin’s main claim is that the paper didn’t consider all spectrum. His argument did not include what escapes from the Earth.
As I said, Gavin gives no indication he had actually read the article. I suggest that for you to use Gavin’s blog as evidence for “just plain wrong” you should get the article and show Gavin to be correct in his claim that the article “refers ONLY to the solar radiation absorbtion, not the long wave absorbtion (which is much larger), and doesn’t take into account ozone in any case, which is by far the dominant term in the stratosphere (particularly between 15 and 20km). ”
Perhaps it is true that the paper does not include scattering and reflection of solar radiation, all “downwelling” wavelengths on any levels of the atmosphere, but I don’t see that shown in the abstract. Perhaps you disagree and base your claim, as does Gavin, that the abstract does provide enough information to assume that they do not include reflection. In that case, I’ll return to my original question to you. What makes you so sure as to say “just plain wrong”?
Brendan H:
That’s much too mild a description, Brendan. If “AGW theory” [in reality, the repeatedly falsified “AGW/CO2/climate disaster hypothesis”] were only a minor cause of a small temporary fluctuation in temperature as you imply, then all this would be only an insignificant footnote in an obscure technical journal.
But in reality, the pro-AGW people must cling to their ‘AGW = planetary catastrophe’ meme. Otherwise, what do they get out of it? So Brendan H, you can’t scurry away like that and avoid the central fact: AGW is insignificant; an impotent boogeyman that has been falsified by the Earth’s own cooling climate.
As Andrew W forthrightly admits:
[my emphasis].
Thank you for your honesty, Andrew.
More cracks in the AGW facade…
[…] Award-winning Astronaut Slams Hansen – Urges NASA to ‘Debunk the current hysteria’ over Warming […]
Glenn said: “And no one has claimed anything about stuff escaping from the Earth as far as I can tell, except you. It either came from you or someone else. Who, Andrew? Gavin? The paper? The GAO article? ”
and: “it would be a valid assumption if one assumed you were being honest and had at least a basic understanding of the issue.”
Should I laugh or cry? Maybe we’re on different wavelengths, or different planets.
The whole Green House/Global warming debate is about “stuff”, otherwise known as infra-red radiation, escaping from Earth, and how changes in the concentration of GH gases may affect this.
“It’s valid to assume you meant that the Freidenrich paper should have considered infrared radiation escapting from the Earth.”
Why, after I’ve repeatedly said “it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth” do you think it’s valid to assume I meant the exact opposite???
“Gavin’s main claim is that the paper didn’t consider all spectrum. His argument did not include what escapes from the Earth. ”
But the paper wasn’t about IR escaping from the Earth!! Thats clear in the abstract you quote!!
Glenn: “Gavin gives no indication he had actually read the article.”
But Gavin says “FR93 are discussing the absorbtion of downwelling SOLAR Near-IR by H2O and CO2 – that is the shortwave part of the spectrum (the 4.3, 2.7 and 2 micrometer bands).” The abstract doesn’t refer to the specific wavelengths FR93 were examining, Gavin must have looked beyond the abstract to determine this.
“Perhaps you disagree and base your claim, as does Gavin, that the abstract does provide enough information to assume that they do not include reflection.”
I’ve been struggling to work sense out of your ramblings but you’ve lost me here, by “reflection” are you refering to IR radiation that has been emitted by the Earth’s surface after it has been heated by solar radiation?
Smokey said: “Thank you for your honesty, Andrew.”
Thanks, but I’m position on AGW hasn’t changed since I started studying the issue 3 years ago, so “More cracks” isn’t accurate as there’s been no change (on my account) in the “AGW facade”, and my opinion isn’t integral to such a “facade” anyway.
Also my above comments don’t mean I claim knowledge that AGW catastrophies won’t happen, just that I don’t see solid evidence that they will.
Smokey: “If “AGW theory”…were only a minor cause of a small temporary fluctuation in temperature as you imply…”
It’s not AGW theory that causes the rise in atmospheric temperatures. The rise is mostly caused by additional levels of man-made CO2. AGW theory explains the reasons for the rise.
Nor do I imply that CO2 is “only a minor cause of a small temporary fluctuation in temperature”. That is your creative inference. As for “mild”, my description is consistent with claims made by official agencies, eg:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Or: “Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses [sic] produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.”
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/effects/
Does that sound like a “small temporary fluctuation in temperature”? I’d give that an unequivocal no. Does it sound like an “AGW = planetary catastrophe’ meme”. Not obviously, no.
BTW, did you manage to get the contact details of the generous wealthy person who’s handing out megabucks to corrupt media people to push AGW? My unemployed journalist friend who lost his home in the subprime crash has now moved into my garage with his family, who depend on him for support.
It’s rather damp down there and they’re subsisting on fast food, which is a well known health hazard. My mental health is also suffering. Last night he was banging his head against the garage wall, in frustration and despair, I guess. Fortunately, the garage wall is made of concrete, so no harm done, but my sleep was badly disturbed.
So for all our sakes, any information you have would be greatly appreciated.
Brendan H,
I’m sorry about that. Is that the reason for the snarkyness? If so, I understand. You are forgiven.
Now, if your ‘friend’ wants a payoff for promoting AGW, I refer you to any search engine, which will point you to the many organizations that shovel money into James Hansen’s and other AGW promoters’ pockets. But keep in mind that the recipients are those in positions of authority. The information is easy to find, but I’m not going to hold your hand and do your searching for you. I’m sure you understand.
To give you a helping hand, though, I suggest you do searches that include the Grantham Foundation, the David Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Soros Foundation, the Tides Foundation, MovOn.org, the Heinz Foundation, and many similar organizations funding those who advocate AGW/climate catastrophe. [As an aside, there is a specific reason that the UN, the EU, and numerous individuals in influential positions fought tooth and nail for years to keep Saddam Hussein safe: click. The same type of monetary influence is corrupting climate science.]
I’m sure you also understand that your ‘friend’ would have to be the head of an influential scientific or news organization, as I repeatedly explained to you upthread. Why pay off many, when one is sufficient? The people making these payoffs are not stupid. It is well documented that James Hansen, as head of GISS, has already received over $1 million in ‘gifts’ — which we know about. Since the head of GISS has the utmost influence when it comes to giving pay raises, and promotions, and causing layoffs and downgrades when convenient, then there is no reason to give gifts, or grants, or payoffs by any other name to any lower-ranking employees; GISS employees naturally fall into line when the boss makes it clear that he expects them to toe the AGW line, because those who don’t, suffer. Human Nature 101.
If your pal can figure out a way to replace Hansen, then he, too, can become an instant millionaire, as Hansen has become. But as an unemployed nobody, he’s as out of luck as you or I.
Smokey: “But as an unemployed nobody, he’s as out of luck as you or I.”
That’s very disappointing news. My friend was hoping to board the AGW gravy train. On the other hand, he is ideologically very flexible. Now that Heritage and co. have lost their ExxonMobil funding, they may be prepared to hire some discount PR.
My friend is old-school. He’ll do alarmist, denialist, whatever. He’s the consummate professional that way. His only proviso is that payment be kept ‘off the books’. Any chance you could use your influence with your friends in the sceptic think tanks to help a fellow human in need?
Heat is life, to a degree.
I fear a cold planet not a warm one.
If I had to choose, I would much rather have the AGW “catastrophes” than another “mini” ice age.
Instead of trying to stop AGW mankind needs to find a way to create and control it in case of a real catastrophe occurs like the sun’s energy ouput being decreased or blocked by a dust cloud as our solar system wanders through the cosmos.
In the real world people enjoy summer and prepare for winter.
Mankind is not prepared…
Dr. William Gray isn’t impressed either. From icecap.us:
On the Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society
By Dr. William Gray
I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year’s recipient of the AMS’s highest award – the Rossby Research Medal. James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist. His formal education has been in astronomy. His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality. Hansen has exploited the general public’s lack of knowledge of how the globe’s climate system functions for his own benefit. His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified. Why have we allowed him go on for all these years with his faulty and alarmist prognostications? And why would the AMS give him its highest award?
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) was founded in 1919 as an organization dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge of weather and climate. It has been a wonderful beacon for fostering new understanding of how the atmosphere and oceans function. But this strong positive image is now becoming tarnished as a result of the AMS leadership’s capitulating to the lobby of the climate modelers and to the outside environmental and political pressure groups who wish to use the now AMS position on AGW to help justify the promotion of their own special interests. The effectiveness of the AMS as an objective scientific organization has been greatly compromised.
We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.
Debate. The AMS is the most relevant of our country’s scientific societies as regards to its members having the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. It should have been a leader in helping to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics. Our country’s Anglo-Saxon derived legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a continuous issue present their differing views in open debate before a non partisan jury. Nothing like this has happened with regards to the AGW issue. Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion. For a long time I have wanted a forum to express my skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. No such opportunities ever came within the AMS framework. Attempts at publication of my skeptic views have been difficult. One rejection stated that I was too far out of the mainstream thinking. Another that my ideas had already been discredited. A number of AGW skeptics have told me they have had similar experiences.
The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question on the grounds that the issue has already been settled by their model results. They have taken this view because they know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review (see Appendix). They simply will not debate the issue. As a defense against criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis. AGW skeptics are sometimes tagged (I have been) as no longer being credible scientists. Skeptics are often denounced as tools of the fossil-fuel industry. A type of McCarthyism against AGW skeptics has been in display for a number of years.
Recent AMS Awardees. Since 2000 the AMS has awarded its annual highest award (Rossby Research Medal) to the following AGW advocates or AGW sympathizers; Susan Solomon (00), V. Ramanathan (02), Peter Webster (04), Jagadish Shukla (05), Kerry Emanuel (07), Isaac Held (08) and James Hansen (09). Its second highest award (Charney Award) has gone to AGW warming advocates or sympathizers; Kevin Trenberth (00), Rich Rotunno (04), Robert D. Cess (06), Allan Betts (07), Gerald North (08) and Warren Washington and Gerald Meehl (09). And the other Rossby and Charney awardees during this period are not known to be critics of the AGW warming hypothesis.