Guest post by Steven Goddard
Suzanne Goldenberg recently
complained in the UK Guardian about the
ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) global warming “deniers” :
The 600 attendees (by the organisers’ count) are almost entirely white males, and many, if not most, are past retirement age. Only two women and one African-American man figure on the programme of more than 70 speakers.
In the UK, profiling like that might be considered a hate crime if it were about any other group other than the one she described. But that isn’t the point. Below is a
photo of the vaunted
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) taken at their last meeting. The spitting image of her description of the I
CCC. No doubt Ms. Goldenberg considers the adult white men in the I
PCC to be great visionaries, leading the noble fight against climate Armageddon.
Here are some other scientists active in climate change:
Jim Hansen:
Hansen at a climate conference in Denmark 2009.
Left to Right: Dr. Gavin Schmidt (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), Dr. Paul Knappenberger (President of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum), Dr. Wally Broecker (Columbia University), and Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (University of Chicago) pose for a photo after the first of the Global Climate Change forum. Forum I was held at the Adler Planetarium.
Is it a big surprise that most
senior scientists are adult white males? And what criteria did she use to choose the expertise of one group of prestigious scientists to the exclusion of another? Does she consider her personal climate expertise to be superior to
Dr. Richard Lindzen, to the point where she can choose to simply ignore his opinion?
Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. He has published over 200 books and scientific papers. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 (physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001). He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists.
It is one thing to question the scientific conclusions of an organisation, and a completely different matter to make an ad hominem attack against an entire group – based on such witless criteria.
H/T to Aron for finding the article
Like this:
Like Loading...
IMHO, what needs to be addressed here is the behavior of the pro-AGW sites, which are losing hits to WUWT [you know who you are]. This site lets everyone have their say, so it can not be classified as pro- or anti- anything. It’s primarily about climate science. Through reasonable discussion, the truth emerges. The problem is that certain argumentative tactics are employed by a few people in order to cause problems, rather than trying to find answers.
Many of us have tried to post very reasonable, polite and factual comments with peer-reviewed citations at sites like Realclimate, but if the comments don’t toe the Party line, they are never allowed to be seen on the thread. They are censored. Yes, the truth hurts them that much, that they’re willing to defenestrate free speech.
I realize we’re kicking booty here with one hand tied behind our backs, but giving equal courtesy to people who seem to have their On/Off switch wired around to where they incessantly bird dog posts, and never, ever answer questions asked, seems unfair to the great majority of people wanting to get an honest understanding of the issues.
What I’d like to see is an agreement with the AGW believer sites that they won’t censor the comments made by skeptics. They do it all the time, which just means they’re propaganda sites masquerading as science sites. No wonder WUWT kicked butt on RC by 10 – 1.
Otherwise, I’d like to see WUWT the way it was before the alarmist contingent moved in. The obstruction tactics escalated about the time WUWT won the “Best Science” award and its popularity skyrocketed. It’s clear that there’s a lot of jealousy and hatred coming here from the losers. But they read WUWT every day, and they post here. Some of them are deliberately sowing dissension. It is a tactic.
Now it’s my turn to ask my question once again: Please provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. If you can. With plenty of citations. Empirical evidence, not computer generated “what-ifs.” Because the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is the central, make or break question in the entire climate/global warming debate.
I’m waiting.
~snip~ ~dbstealey, mod.
“I gave “Giles” plenty of citations”
No, really. Just count them up. And you still haven’t shown evidence for your posts of
14:08:24
20:18:45
“So, you have proof of:
“..UN/IPCC is staffed entirely with political appointees..”
and
“..IPCC is thoroughly corrupt..”
and
“..primary agenda of separating the West, and U.S. taxpayers in particular, from $Billions every year ..””
For your ‘…provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming.”
* IPCC http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
* IPCC-FAQ: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
* EPA-Basic Info http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
* EDF-Basic Science http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/
* The Discovery of Global Warming http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Knock yourself out.
And you still haven’t shown evidence for your assertion: ‘coming of the Ice Age programs’ in schools.
‘cite pest’: You mean like the English teacher, Science teacher, History teacher, Business teacher all asked for? Show what informs your thinking.
Somehow ““Hansen, Suzuki, Mann, etc., etc. They all take outside money”” without proof even after asking isn’t ad hom, but quoting 3 examples of Exxon using the same thinktanks or scientists as Reynolds did is? Quotes were from the paper Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf) which they footnote and document.
“Giles Winterbourne“, you are a funny guy! I asked for solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. Instead, I get those comedy links. And as usual, more questions intended to evade my original question.
OK, by the numbers, those lame “citations”:
1. BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! The discredited hockey stick graph is on the very first IPCC page. Please.
2. Without any solid evidence, the next link simply assumes that climate models are accurate; and that sea levels are rising; and that natural variability doesn’t explain the climate. BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! Nice try, and thanx for playing. Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.
3. That link is by and for politicians. It proves exactly nothing, it’s just a biased Q & A page with no backup. So… BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!!
4. A blog post is your presumed authority?? Stick with the “Best Science” site Giles, me boy, and forget those wannabe sites. They’re for losers, so not many folks click on them. Besides, it’s still just another biased Q & A page, therefore: BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!!
5. A guy shilling a book is supposed to answer my CO2 question?? [Or, I could conveniently buy his CD Rom if I prefer. heh.] BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! See Vanna for some valuable coupons.
Giles, please just try to answer a straightforward question: will an increase in CO2 cause runaway global warming? Yes or No? As repeatedly stated, this is the central question in the AGW debate. Don’t forget to provide your falsifiable, real world evidence.
I don’t see any serious discussion on how the information on those sites is in error; rather, just some bad attempts at humorous rejoinders that don’t touch on the subject. Do you think those comments would fly on any science site? Really?
‘Hockey Stick’ Perhaps you haven’t read WG1 Chap.6 Multiple studies, with a variety of proxies. Basically the same hockey stick. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
No substantive critique about History of Global Warming? Why not? To make it simpler for you (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) is the basic CO2 is a GHG chapter. Figure out what’s wrong in your eyes and report back.
“First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.” John P. Holdren http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/
And still no citations……
And STILL NO ANSWER to my straightforward question about CO2 causing runaway global warming. Provide replication/falsifiability, please.
And I have plenty of cites, as you must be aware. But I’ve repeatedly asked, so you first.
Quit dodging the question.
Smokey: “Lindzen is exactly right, and he would have told more of the truth if he didn’t have to work with some of those same corrupt individuals.”
Lindzen has a curious way of damning with faint praise. Take this example:
“Perhaps the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.”
Nice insinuation to make about a scientific colleague.
The people who are quickest to point the conspiracy finger at AGW are also the ones who squeal loudest when the likes of Suzanne Goldenberg correctly identify their political leanings.
Goldenberg’s identification of the age, gender and political leanings of the ICCC attendees also highlights the narrow representation of sceptic ‘big guns’. By and large the scientists are the same old suspects, padded out by supporters whose main focus is the ideology, much like Inhofe’s list of 650 septics.
AGW sceptic science as practised by the current crop has no future because it’s not attracting young, vital minds.
Steve – I have yet to advocate hysteria. There may well be a few well known people ‘hysterical’ about AGW as you say – yet there are also many calm and rational scientists, actually an overwhelming majority, who are deeply concerned about the scale of the potential threat and the impotence of the political response to date. Witness the recent Copenhagen Congress – over 80 sessions nearly all chaired by academics in the fields of climate science or economics and qualified to Doctorate or Professorship level. Compare and contrast with the Heartland Institute’s gathering, speaking in the climate science ‘tracks’ to make up the numbers we have Syun Akasofu, David Evans, Piers Corbyn, Don Easterbrook and of course, Christopher Monckton. None of whom has or will be published in the field. Objectively speaking, one concludes …. ?
How about 30,000,000 people living on the San Andreas fault around Los Angeles? The fault has meters of stored displacement accumulated from the last couple of hundred years.
Your number seems high, representing as it does about half the population of the UK., but let us assume it is correct, it is a lot of people and yet, according to the IPCC and this body, inter alia, it is dwarfed by the number of people, which runs into the billions, who will face water stress if even the most optimistic projections of the IPCC are realised. These people are not helped by hysteria, clearly. But equally, in my view, the complacency that infuses your posts long ago ceased to be an option.
I always love this:
How does the atmosphere know whether it was warmed by CO2 and should allow more water vapor in, or that it should turn it away because the increase in temperature was already due to water vapor? Where is the increase in absolute humidity, hasn’t it been measured, and wouldn’t that be all over the news if confirmed? My mind is wide open, but AGW proponents just call me names instead of showing me satisfactory evidence.
Brendan H:
Yes-s-s!! He sticks the knife into the vital organ where it belongs.
Lindzen is no dummy.
John Philip:
Educated folks should know that the San Andreas fault extends from southern California up into north of San Jose, in Northern California. Surely you knew that too… Right?
” yet there are also many calm and rational scientists, actually an overwhelming majority, who are deeply concerned about the scale of the potential threat and the impotence of the political response to date. Witness the recent Copenhagen Congress – over 80 sessions nearly all chaired by academics in the fields of climate science or economics and qualified to Doctorate or Professorship level”
Can you name three concrete proposals that the Copenhagen Congress came up with to mitigate climate change? Is there an action plan that has been endorsed by these scientists? Do these scientists believe that by turning this over to the politicians that the earth will be saved?
I have seen no comprehensive step by step plan or even some type of an attempt to put together an action plan. The only thing I have heard is, turn this over to the politicians.
Smokey: “Lindzen is no dummy.”
I don’t think he is a dummy, just two-faced with his faux respect for his colleague’s achievements while, as you say, turning the knife.
Lindzen’s anecdotes and accusation of corruption smack of professional jealousy and are very unbecoming in a man who has otherwise had a distinguished career.
“Can you name three concrete proposals that the Copenhagen Congress came up with to mitigate climate change?”
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/
Dr. Balgis Osman-Elasha, Professor Daniel Kammen, Professor Qingchen Chao
Each have specific proposals tailored to their country or region and economy. Low Carbon / Renewables, Adaptations, New Technology Implementations. Most are functioning at this point and just need larger scale. Several other speakers there also. Perhaps reading their presentations would be profitable.
Giles Winterbourne said
“No substantive critique about History of Global Warming? Why not? To make it simpler for you (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) is the basic CO2 is a GHG chapter. Figure out what’s wrong in your eyes and report back.”
Not only did i read that ages ago but I bought Callendars extensive archives.(5000 records) I suggest you read them before citing this document as proof.
Callendar cherry picked old co2 records (read Beck on this) which I have also researched. He matched it to highly selected temperature records to make his hypotheses. Even then he believed there were only 200 weather stations world wide up to 1938 that could be called reliable, and far fewer as you go back in time-around 50 in 1850. Charles Keeling admitted he was influenced by Callendar and used his figures.
Just before Callendar died there were some very cold winters and he admitted he might have got it wrong and was no longer confident about his theory as to the amount of AGW. Just before Keeling died he admitted the 19th century co2 scientists were more accurate than he had thought-who generally measured higher co2 levels than Callendar chose to use.
I know of no one that disputes co2 could warm, but the figure is a fraction of a degree-well within natural variability- not many whole degrees. That can only be achieved with exotic and unproven feedbacks fuelled by unreliable computer models.
As Smokey says, show us with an A to Z precisely how we get to the sort of temperature rises predicted by a doubling of co2.
Tonyb
Brendan H, Prof. Lindzen has no reason to be jealous of others. He is at the very top of his field. Rather, it is those others who are jealous of Dr. Lindzen, and they are understandably upset when he exposes their devious shenanigans.
If you can refute the examples that Dr, Lindzen gave, I would be interested in hearing your experience in the matter.
TonyB, I will be most interested in seeing if anyone attempts to refute your key paragraph:
That simple statement boils the whole discussion down to its key element.
Interesting that out of all the scientists, we get two who (according to unacknowledged resources) had deathbed recanting of their life’s work. Sounds like some ghostwriting to me.
Unfortunately, their research holds up. Additional research replicates their findings. Advancements in measuring, access to broader databases all support their research.
Also, by tossing out some spurious claims about two, you’re ignoring all the research compiled by IPCC.
Sorry, “Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.” John P. Holdren http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/
Roger Knights (08:14:15) :
Lucy Skywalker wrote:
“dreaming into being the skeptics’ wiki we need, alongside NIPCC and ICCC, to correct the record so that even bimbos like Monbiot cannot ignore it, nor his followers, and I’m encouraging others here to do the same.”
A wiki would be a huge and contentious project. If anybody out there has the time and computer knowledge, here’s a more modest first step, which I’ve suggested before.
Roger, thanks. I used to be daunted by the notion of a wiki being a “huge and contentious project” but have had a lot more thoughts about starting it simple. Have a look here and do contact me direct. I’ll ponder your thoughts too, meanwhile.
Smokey – your little barb about ‘educated folks’ misses the target because the number was 30m in the Los Angeles area. As it happens I hold a degree, studying for which taught me the importance of paying attention to detail.
Interesting that out of all the scientists, we get two who (according to unacknowledged resources) had deathbed recanting of their life’s work.
Make that three. Al Gore’s mentor Roger Revelle denounced alarmist visions of the future before he passed away. Al Gore responded the way he usually does to his critics. He insulted Revelle by saying he must have been senile.
So if you disagree with Gore you are either a flat earther, creationist, Holocaust denier, criminal, paid by big oil, senile or (in Lovelock’s case) have forgotten science.
It won’t be long before Al Gore accuses critics of being in cahoots with Xenu. That way he can get the Scientologists on his side too (he already has a few from Hollywood).
Giles Winterbourne (02:28:49) :
Also, by tossing out some spurious claims about two, you’re ignoring all the research compiled by IPCC.
I have waded through the chapters 8 9 and 10 of the IPCC report. Have you?
I have over thirty five years experience in fitting models to data, in another field ( particle physics). My not so humble opinion is that the whole caboodle of models on which the IPCC report is based should be sent back to the very basic drawing board: change of basic premises.
There are many things wrong,.
A basic one for me is that in these models, where there are a large number of parameters there is no error propagation. Instead, different runs around basic fits are shown to simulate the chaotic intitial conditions of any climate situation, and then used instead of errors. In addition, different models are presented on the same plot again as if they constitute an error envelope. This is not only poor science, it is intent to deceive the reader. If one follows individual models one sees that all are bad fits, except the cloud of spaghetti forces the eye to fool the brain that the fit is “adequate”.
Even if one simple parameter, the albedo, is varied one sigma the whole fit from the model, the temperatures which have been fitted, will move 1C making nonsense of the whole plot.
A second crucial one, is that the complicated system of partial differential equations that determine the time propagation of climate is treated as if it has solutions amenable to perturbative expansion : the mean is substituted for many variables entering into the grid calculations. The mean is the first order in a perturbative expansion, except that in the chaotic climate system it is absolutely certain that the real solutions will diverge, because it is the higher order terms that will kick in. That is why, even though there is a good fit for back data, the minute they try to predict the future, it diverges after a limited number of time steps with a vengeance.
The only way for modeling climate in my opinion has to go through something similar to what Tsonis et al are doing, simulation of the chaotic equations directly.
It is really very sad that, as in the link you provided, science it depicted as a matter of voting.
Nobel prizes my eye, look at the current economic situation, all the nobels in economics led us here.
It is the science that is crucial and unfortunately not enough physicists have bothered to look at the mess that is the IPCC proposition. Fifty years from now people will be wondering how the politicians could have fallen off the cliff on this issue like lemmings. Though I guess it is simple: they follow the money.
anna,
Where have you published your concerns? What discussions have been published?
et al,
Now we’re up to three deathbed recantings. Unattributed…. Though if you’re talking of the Singer / Revelle et al paper, there’s significant debate about his actual participation. And his comment – if it is his comment – reflects partially the state of learning at the time.
With all three, the science has advanced significantly. Would the ‘Leap’ paper be the source for a discussion of geo or bio-engineering ? Would you accept its claim that solar energy is a viable choice?
And in any case, this argument has become stupid. You are using one or two unattributed comments in an attempt to invalidate hundreds, no, thousands of papers discussing research that reaches one conclusion. That you can’t support an alternative theory further indicates the weakness of your position.
anna v (04:16:35) :
That is an excellent explanation/summary of what is wrong with the models (although I’ll have to take your expert opinion for it; models are not my thing). I spent years doing chemical analyses in triplicate and working out errors to prove differences (successfully). It is a chore. Re-runs of models are ‘lazy science’. If you do an experiment ten times and get the same trend ten times, but the trend is smaller than the sum of the errors, the result is meaningless.