This is a bit disturbing, though in retrospect, not surprising. One of our local IPCC wonks at Chico State University, Jeff Price, is a biologist, but lectures me about climate all the same. – Anthony
by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:
During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer
This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.
First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.
This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority.
I used to believe in peer-reviewed papers.
Unfortunately the mainstream media was long annointed the ultimate authority.
Dude looks like one of those neanderthals in the car insurance commercials.
Oh, come on, now. They just want to make the World a “better place.”
They have an “Earth Charter,” approved for all audiences by the UN….
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/religion/2007/11/un_report_highlights_the_earth.html
…and they have a cute little box to keep it in, and to make you feel all warm, fuzzy and secure about how justified they are to dictate how you live your life…
http://www.arkofhope.org/
Just because they haven’t a clue what they are doing is no reason to belittle the incompetent delusional buggers.
Remember, the UN is the same organization that puts out the IPCC, so obviously they only have our best interests at heart.
“”” Joel Shore (19:09:59) :
crosspatch:
Hansen is an astrophysicist, not a meteorologist or climatologist. Not having credentials in the field of study doesn’t stand in the way of one’s work as long as they are on the “correct” side of the issue.
No, it doesn’t stand in his way because astrophysics provides an excellent background for studying climate science and because he has shown his expertise in climate science by publishing many widely-cited peer-reviewed papers in the field in prestigious journals. Scientists don’t care what the original field of study is of their fellow scientists … It is what you are publishing that counts. “””
Well I agree with your assertion Joel, that Hansen’s background is not a bar to his utterances on Climate. Dr Willie Soon, is also an Astrophysicist, but that hasn’t stopped the MMGWCC crowd from dissing him. The Astro part, I am sure gives one an understanding of the star (solar) processes, and also orbital dynamics which can affect short term and long term climate; but presumably the Physics part is paramount in the case of either of those gentlemen.
One might argue that Physics is merely Applied Mathematics; Chemistry is just Applied Physics; and Biology is just Applied Chemistry.
But Physics has to be central to any organised study of the observable Universe.
I disagrre with your assertion; “… It is what you are publishing that counts. ”
What you are publishing seems to matter most in Academia. Could it be that the Publish or Perish dogma actually colors what “scientists” actually say in their publications; they do after all have to drum up grant money to keep themselves employed as researchers.
In Industry, Publication is most commonly used as an advertising tool; and modern companies tend to prefer to keep advanced developments as either trade secrets, or else go the patent route; after all, research results turn into competitive profit opportunities.
I’ve been a practising Physicist working in Industry for about 50 years since I left Academia. Much of that work might be considered as Engineering; rather than Science; But the actual Engineering currcula, at the Universities that I am familiar with; is a far cry from the Science curricula, including in the mathematics disciplines.
My work is judged by my employers only on the basis of how it affects their bottom line; it has to work first and foremost; it has to be reliable; and it has to cause customers to freely place their own money down in exchange for products containing my works.
I have far more US Patents, than I do Technical Journal Publications, and I am sure that most of those patented ideas would never have arisen if my formal trainning had been engineering, rather than Physics, and Mathematics. An optical patent, that I filed just yesterday employs at least one unique optical surface, that heretofore has been entirely unknown; yet Optics is very old branch of Physics, and the case that I discovered is a relatively simple alteration of one of the most well known results in all of geometrical optics. A supervisor, with a PhD in Optics, from the University of Arizona Optical Sciences Center; simply couldn’t believe the result, when I showed it to him, let alone that I figured it out on the back of an envelope, and not with an expensive automatic Optical optimisation software program.
I have found that the Physics foundation has made me a better engineer, and allows me to work productively in a great number of different fields.
In the time that I have been following Anthony’s forum here; it seems that the statistical mathematicians seem to outnumber by far, any other basic discipline; including basic Meteorology, that I would think should be central to the study of climate.
So I believe that publication is a quite poor measure fo expertise; I’ve seen too much publication where the authors just wanted to be the first with papers in the field; and it mattered little to them, that ultimately it would be widely recognised as junk. “Researchers” with that central modus operandi, are quick to move on to a new field, once the real practical problems of the one they were working on, rear their ugly head, and need to be solved before the technology is useful. They’s rather be first in the new field with more of the soon to be junk publications.
So I’m not one of those, willing to declare Dr Hansen incompetent (in climate science). I don’t know what motivates him; but I don’t think it is ignorance on his part; even though I disagree with his viewpoint.
History will judge him and his disciples.
George
Joel Shore—-on the IPCC and its working groups…., yes, 3. One studies the science behind AGW, the two others deal with it—-, the two others????
So, it is a foregone conclusion the humans cause the planet to warm. Hmmmm……., why then do we need that first group?????
And no one had better question them.
Yes?
John Philip attempts to re-frame the argument. Here is where he’s off base:
First, only those with degrees in the physical sciences are eligible to sign the OISM Petition. That limits it to real players. Compare that to the “We Can Solve It” feel-good way for even the most scientifically illiterate, uneducated person to sign up and send money with a few mouse clicks. Signing the OISM Petition requires sending it by First Class mail, and signers must be American scientists. Attempting to re-frame the argument with a comparison to a world wide mass emailing is typical disinformation of those promoting AGW.
Unlike the slick but meaningless “We Can Solve It” production, which is aimed more at fundraising from the masses of Kool Aid drinkers rather than credentialed people, the OISM Petition is crystal clear in its statement and intent:
It is a revealing comment arguing completely dissimilar petitions, rather than debating the scientific method-based OISM statement. But that is the typical alarmist M.O.
I too have had ‘some dealings with the climate’, I went for a walk and it rained on me, the sun came out and it became quite windy, this dried me out somewhat!
Could I get on the IPCC gravytrain too?
Ill get my coat.
Mike Bryant (19:54:05) :
On Galileo’s recantation:
“…should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor…”
This is the frightening part of an authority that brooks no dissent. That a country like the U.S. founded on a principle that dissent is perhaps the most healthy way to amend social ills – the direction we see the AGWs moving disturbs. But the analogy is near perfect. IPCC and its MSM cohorts are determined to silence or ridicule any skeptical (read heretical) view. It took 400 years for the Church to admit its gross, indeed, “heretical error,” and apologize to Galileo. Bruno still awaits.
Which is why sites such as this, and the dialog established by like minds the world over – is the antidote to anti-science. We have here a publishing forum potentially as influential as MSM. Thank you Anthony and the cogent contributors here. The greatest learning I took from college may yet prove to be correct: “Know the Truth, and it will set you Free.”
Seems to me that the biggest danger of what these folks (IPCC) are doing is what they intend to do about Earth’s climate.
They intend to control it by what means?
Cloud seeding?
Contrails?
Nuking Volcanoes?
Mass CO2 stripping and sequestration?
Whose laboratory will they use : Private or the Entire Earth?
“But all are probably socialists, and that is what we are really dealing with.”
This really is disgusting.
Frankly why not say they are all do-gooders or evil-doers.
This is nothing but an ad hominem attack.
“History will judge him and his disciples.”
Nice take George. You are indeed, a gentleman and scholar.
I watched the tapes of the debate between Schlesinger and Christy, and was a little surprised by how poorly Schlesinger did. It seems that the stereotype of the alarmists is quite accurate: they assume their models are correct, or correct “enough”, and are a little annoyed that there are still people out there that don’t believe them (catch his closing remarks on tape 8). He offered no defense to Christy’s critique of the models, which Christy based on observational science. No wonder the alarmists don’t want to debate.
Roger Knights (06:45:07),
In looking at that site, Roger, it was pretty apparent that Kevin Kelly has drunk of the magical catastrophic AGW Kool Aid potion. I’ll agree with you that many of the follow-up comments were reasonable, and as you can see they made Kelly squirm a little.
So I thought I’d contribute a reasonable [IMHO] comment. I prudently saved it, in case it was censored [it was]. So I submitted it again. It was censored again. I submitted it a third time. Censored again.
I believe my comment was no more worthy of deleting than other comments I’ve made at RC, which were similarly censored. Here’s what Kelly deleted 3 times today:
WUWT welcomes dissenting opinion. Most pro-AGW sites censor uncomfortable comments. That tells us all we need to know about which side is confident in its side of the debate.
I know why scientists are not lining up to publish research disproving AGW. I know what motivates scientists like Hansen to lie, cheat, defraud, etc.
I applied Occam’s Razor and an old adage to get the answers.
Follow the money.
I think that picture of Rajendra Pachauri should be put up on huge advertising hoardings all over the world with the caption “Your future is in his hands”.
“Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer”
TOOOT TOOOT All Aboard for the IPCC’s AGW wild ride to global control of what you do and how you do it.
Pay no attention to natural variation.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
(that gif of AlBore is priceless!)
Blame yourselves and submit to the control of those who want you to think they are smarter and better than you.
Come on, hurry up. There’s no time to waste, or you’ll be run over by that swiftly oncoming disaster…
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/12/sunshine-duration-accounts-for-93-of.html
…and you’ll delay the gravy train of the AGW alarmists, a truly unforgivable sin.
Why don’t I ever read about any recent former skeptics?
You know, ex skeptical scientists now in the IPCC camp?
Which would be the opposite of scientists like this.
http://lostconservative.blogspot.com/2008/06/real-truth-about-agw.html
Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.
The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW – and the use of AGW – by non-scientists.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
http://lostconservative.blogspot.com/2008/06/real-truth-about-agw.html
The Religion of Global Warming II
Dr. Edward F Blick
Prof. of Engineering,, Univ. Of Oklahoma, 1959-2007
He has also been Adjunct Prof. Of Medicine and Adjunct Prof. of Meteorology at the same institution. He was formerly a U.S. Air Force Weatherman.
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/warming_religion_excerpt.pdf
MIT Professor, Richard S. Lindzen may be the top climatologist in the world. He was elected to the National Academy of Science (NAS) at the age of 37. He wrote an opinion editorial for the Wall Street Journal, where he stated that he and members of the National Academy of Science did not agree with the notion that the U.N.’s IPCC “Summary for Policy Makers” was based on true science. They concluded it represents a consensus of U.N. politicians (many of whom are also their nations Kyoto representatives.) He stated, “As a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios. CO2 and methane are minor greenhouse gases, with water vapor accounting for 98% of the greenhouse effect. The earth is cooled primarily by air currents, which carry the heat upward, and poleward. Present models have large errors on the order of 50%. These models are unable to calculate correctly the average earth temperature or variations from equator to poles. Fudge factors are added to get the answers they want! The most alarming long range predictions rely on these untrustworthy models, which cannot even accurately forecast the weather a week from now”!
Hi Smokey,
I think KK is on the fence, or appreciates the need for minority voices to be heard, or both. I don’t think the site would block a comment such as the one you’ve just posted above. I suspect you didn’t fill out the “capcha” field before clicking Submit. Try it again.
Today’s Episode, A FLY IN THE OINTMENT, or WHEN REALITY BITES BACK
@george E. Smith (10:52:28) :
“My work is judged by my employers only on the basis of how it affects their bottom line; it has to work first and foremost; it has to be reliable;…”
But why can’t we just tell the customer’s it works, and if they aren’t satisfied it must be THEIR fault?
“…and it has to cause customers to freely place their own money down in exchange for products containing my works.”
Now there’s your mistake, George. You are allowing the customer to determine what products are in his best interest. You’ll never get rich quick with that attitude, son.
Now, if you go into politics, you can pass laws that require the customer to buy whatever you want, without him having to be happy about it, and it’s all nice and legal like. And the best part is, you don’t need to waste all that money on college, though if you already have, it’s a great way to offset that loss.
I like the George E Smith prose for describing a sceptic. (not sure about that spelling.
I too am an old physicist exMInstPhy, qualified electrical, telecomms and radio engineer and I too have doubted the CO² science but for more than 20 years.
My physics and electrical knowledge allows me to have a ‘feel’ for the science but NOT for the statistics and it is the statistics which is the major skill and knowledge required to do climate science. Look at the shinanigans that Mann and Hansen have indulged in. Only a knowledgeable statistician could have found the really bad maths (not science) in their old work and in their latest attempts of resurection.
Climate science is not IMHO a science in its own right it is an application of the fundamental sciences such as physics and maths but as a physicist I do not feel able to verify and validate the work of the climate science community but I am very well qualified to asses their scientific behaviour. It stinks.
Scepticism is not the right of scientist it is their duty and the exposure of method and data is a requirement which cannot be dodged. If you employ either method then you are not a scientist. Ergo, H & M.
Thanks to George
Ron de Haan
I knew some years back that the AGW was a smokescreen for the Fabian agenda – I know lefties, some as public servants, who agreed that AGW “science” was seriously flawed and that it was more about forcing us to become more sustainable.
In my area of work, mineral exploration, the regulation and sheer dictatorial mind set of, what we disparagingly call, the Eco Police has got to the ridiculous stage. Whenever we drill a bore hole, we now have to put the cuttings back down the hole, and if we can’t fit it all in, we then have to dispose of the residue ….where I wonder. Those are the regulations. They also expect us to advise the bureaucrats names, rank and serial numbers of all personnell who go out on field trips, where they are going, for how long, when expected back etc. This regulation is hidden somewhere but one of my peers stumbled on it recently.
So yes, the Greenies want to destroy the mining industry, and killing exploration will do that very nicely. Except I don’t think the mob will put up with it.
Judging some of the reactions here, I think I hit a raw nerve.
John Philip (01:52:47) :
Having just spent an hour studying and evaluating your link it appears that…
1. The signers of the much abused so called Oregon petition are generally more likely to be scientists than the supposed 2500 claimed by the IPCC. Even omitting Engineers, though why you would do that and count economists and zoologists I can’t imagine, the percentage on the Oregon petition that are qualified in related fields appears to exceed the optimistic 20% of IPCC contributors with “SOME BACKGROUND”.
2. Going down your list of activists and deniers on your link; I was happily accepting your numbers, but noticed that nearly none of the flagged activists were in physics, meteorology astronomy, geology, in fact nothing I would even consider a physical science of any type. 2 or 3 out of the first 100! I quickly found 3 lead authors from past IPCC reports, all of them in the technical field (not policy fields) who are deniers. The claim that only Chris Landsea is a denier is clearly bogus. He is the only one who forced them to remove his name because he didn’t want to be associated with the bad science he saw. Richard Lindzen and John Cristy are of course also former lead authors of Science sections of the IPCC report who are now by your own admission considered in the deniers camp.
It appears your criterion for selecting the top names in the field is baddly flawed if you think these are the top 619, as very few of them have any more qualification than I do.
Thanks for the link but it appears the numbers there and the supposed consensus they represent have to be considered BS.
How not to check for correlation
Let the function T be a function of time t and be a sum of four functions:
g1(t) = t / 4000 , a straight line
g2(t) = 0.25 * arctan((t-30)/5) , a step function
g3(t) = -(t/3) * exp(0.0001 * (t-55)^2 * (t-60)^2) , a “bump”
g4(t) = gaussian noise, realized by adding 6 calls to the random() function and dividing by 12 (that’s a good enough approximation)
Plots of these functions are shown in the topmost chart in this image:
http://i39.tinypic.com/296652.png
Adding them all results in the second plot from the top.
The small plots show, from left to right, T(t) over g1(t), T(t) over g2(t) and T(t) over g3(t). These are the kind of plots you would use to see correlations between temperature and a single forcing as it was suggested by Smokey (12:22:57). Each of them shows, that the respective function is NOT responsible for the behavior of T. However we do know in this case already, that T is the sum of g1, g2 and g3 plus some “weather” noise.
Plotting just one contributing factor vs. the signal T is NOT a viable way to evaluate that factor’s contribution. If anyone tries to sell you this nonsense, you should know you are being had. And it is exactly what is done, if you plot CO2 vs. temperature to disprove the role of CO2 on long term plots.
Anyone who can enter equations into a spreadsheet can verify the above.