Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: “When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”
Baum ‘startled’ by scientists reaction.
Baum wrote on July 27, that he was “startled” and “surprised” by the “contempt” and “vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming “consensus.”
“Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.
Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:
“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote.
Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”
ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”
ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? […] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”
Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”
Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: “I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”
William Tolley: “I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”
William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. […] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”
ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum’s editorial go here and see below.]
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an “alarmist screed.”
“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.
Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report
To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: Baum’s grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: ‘Scaremongering’: Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: ‘This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA’…’Misrepresents the science’ – July 8, 2009 )
Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist – No detectable climate impact: ‘If we actually faced a man-made ‘climate crisis’, we would all be doomed’ June 20, 2009 ]
The American Chemical Society’s scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.
On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”
The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.
In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades,’ peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 23, 2009 )
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” 2009’s continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’ – July 5, 2009
In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here – Also see: UN IPCC’s William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
h/t to ClimateDepot.com go there for links to the above referenced stories.
The ACS letters to the editor are here: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html
Well, as a chemist of origin myself, I am not surprised that so many members of the ACS are reacting in that way. Chemistry in general (and chlorine/PVC industry in particular) have been attacked with the same (wrong) arguments, exaggerations, false predictions (remember DDT) as currently in use for climate “change”…
Good work of my former (US) colleagues!
Ferdinand
I was a member of ACS for over 30 years. I let my subscription lapse because ACS increasingly jumped on the “politically correct” bandwagon without any attempt to remain neutral. Neutrality is a must for a scientific journal otherwise it is no different than the “National Enquirer”
I am glad the rest of the members have finally called a halt to using ACS as a political vehicle.
Being chemist myself, I have to laugh. Quote of the week:
“When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”
Look Out Al Gore, the worm is turning.
Thanks for posting this . I saw this earlier and was going to give you a heads up , but someone beat me to it . Thanks again , and keep up the good work .
Why thank you, Mr. Weiner.
Of course, DDT kills… pests. DDT was a major factor in eliminating many diseases and making large areas of the world safe. The main complaints about DDT (ie. egg shell thinning) were disproved, as in PROVEN to be untrue. DDT is banned because of BS (bad science).
And hey, you can rant and rail all you want about CFCs, but in the end you will still not have proven to any reasonable level that CFCs had or have any harmful effect. Just like the whole AGW thing, it’s a reasonble sounding hypothesis, nothing more.
So you’re right… we’re in the “same class”: people who don’t want to see ridiculous sums spent to solve “non-problems” based on dubious science.
Nice to see that the ACS readership does not tolerate the canards of the editor.
This is great. Finally larger and larger groups of scientists are speaking up. With any luck we will put SCIENCE back into climate science.
This is very unsettling for settled science.
Randall (12:28:03) :
Look Out Al Gore, the worm is turning.
——————————–
Perhaps a spin-off of that might be:
Look Out Al Gore, the warm is turning.
Will it make the NYT?
It’s about time for a scientific backlash against the religion of AGW.
“Scientific American” has been hot on the ‘Global Warming’ bandwagon for years. I got angry at first – then I started ignoring the junk articles, but I’ve written a few e-mails specifying that I’d like to see more SCIENCE than OPINION from them.
Don’t know that it’s done any good – though I’ve noticed the last few issues are a bit less AGW-centric.
Hats off to these scientists who are speaking out.
When will GISS people do the same??
A very nice post. Noconsensus.
Consensus is politics not science. It’s good to see science open minded react against claims of consensus.
More good news for those of us who value the integrity of the Scientific Method. The activists, who may well have noble aims (who can say) should and will surely be rooted out, one by one, so that a more rational debate only seen on the fringes can begin.
This article needs to be bookmarked as a source of rebuttal to those unscientific AGW cultists forever claiming that no physical scientists are skeptical of the IPCC AGW assertions.
Oh…this is so good.
The noose is getting very tight!
Love it.
The carefully stacked cards are starting to fall.
July 30, 2009
“The carefully stacked cards are starting to fall”
“The revolt by American Chemical Society members is one of the most important pieces of good news ever in the saga of anthropogenic global warming. When real scientists finally get a chance to vent their opposition to global warming mythology, and more importantly, to have it published in a widely read publication, it’s the beginning of the end of the alarmists’ stranglehold. Once the debate is truly joined, there will be so many holes revealed in standard AGW orthodoxy that it will sink without a trace alongside cold fusion, polywater and mental spoon bending. The ACS revolt also illustrates the classic divide between the views of the members of many large national organizations, who are generally normal people scattered across the heartland, and their leaders, who more often than not these days are housed in Washington, DC, and positioned far to the left of their constituents. The classic example is AARP, with a membership of generally conservative elderly folk and a leadership made up of flaming Maoists. The American Chemical Society’s headquarters is at 16th and M Streets, NW — across the street from the National Geographic Society, in the middle of the belly of the liberal beast. It’s filled from top to bottom with hand-wringing, knee-jerking, affirmative-acting Democrats who are probably all as shocked as the editor at the visceral outpouring against his absolutely ho-hum (to them) platitudes about the looming disaster of global warming and the implacable evil of those who would deny it. The carefully stacked cards are starting to fall” “Re: Chemists in Excited State”
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/carefully-stacked-cards-are-starting-to.html
As a process engineer I follow (or try to follow) the science in this debate.
One of the ACS letters made a request that I think has utmost merit :
A table of predictions made by people regarding what the climate (or weather when it cools) will do.
For instance Gore made some very specific predictions; (temperature; sea level; ice coverage etc) most of which as far as I can discover have totally failed to be met by measuring the outcomes.
I would love it if WUWT could collate and display (on a NEW tab please!) such a summary.
After all; to merit the term science; thesis or theory; a hypothesis must be proposed which makes measurable predictions.
A prediction that is untestable is of course not science – and would need highlighting as such.
Surely we now have enough predictions to draw up such a table ?
(Sorry I know you have a day job too…. )
“The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction”
That’s what happens when your religious beliefs are challenged by people who you thought worshiped at the same tenny-tiny alter you kneel in front of.
Maybe he would be startled if someone told him they believed in Unicorns and wee little Fairies.
““Scientific American” has been hot on the ‘Global Warming’ bandwagon for years.”
—————————————
I noticed that as well. It used to be one of my favorite magazines on plane trips, but years ago I noticed it starting to become more and more political especially regarding global warming. I couldn’t read it anymore after I read an article on the environment during the Bush/Kerry election. In the article Senator Kerry was refered to as “Senator Kerry” about 20 times, where President Bush was refered to as simply “Bush” about 20 times. Everything Senator Kerry said was the greatest thing ever and would save the planet, whereas everything President Bush said was along the lines of “I want my corporate buddies to be able to dump toxic sludge into every stream in america while I sit in the white house and eat puppies”.
I am glad to see this development. I read science for science, not politics.
Consensus primary meaning in my dictionary is unanimous. AGW is far from unanimous. Dump the editor.
First the physicists, now the chemists. This thing sure is settled, huh?
This Baum character is just a writer, correct?
If so, that is about what you would expect from a scientific illiterate.
Maybe the ACS should have a hanging (effigy or otherwise)
This boy obviously needs to go.
“Quick guys! get the bandwagons into a circle before all the wheels come off!”
As a dues paying member of the ACS for over 30 years, I had had enough of Rudy Baum’s pro-alarmist editorials (the June 22 episode was not the first) and fired off a protesting letter of my own. Perhaps I was late to the party or the response was simply overwhelming but I was thanked for my letter and iniformed that unfortuantely the editor determined it would not be printed. Too bad – I put a fair amount of effort into composing it.
I would guess this happened to many others as well implying the revolt was most likely more massive in scale than revealed by the printed responses. Not one of my colleagues buys into the AGW hypothesis and I suspect that this is probably the rule rather than the exception.
As a long time member of ACS, I have found this editor increasingly annoying. He finally stepped over the line.
What is so irritating is the AGW crowd keeps asserting that “deniers” – are denying that the climate changes. No, we don’t we just assert that they don’t have proof of the cause. But Baum goes right back to it in this issue talking about sea ice as proof of why so many of his members are “wrong.”
Hehe… Baum was startled??? If he was up on the subject he would have known the climate was getting colder not warmer. But of course being a true believer he probably ignored the evidence and turned his brain off.
To be fair, many of the protests were in relation to the manner in which people of contrary views were treated by that editorial, not necessarily disagreeing with AGW per-sé.
As for having to create models and propose mechanisms for climate change as one suggested, I think most would agree that that is what got us to this sorry state in the first place!
DaveE.
Yes, the IPCC and nearly all the other climate models have been proven wrong:
THE WARMING AND MELTING ARE FAR WORSE THAN THOSE MODELS PREDICT.
The models were not alarmist: quite the opposite.
Not entirely surprised my last comment did not survive moderation. But where have my previous comments gone? Were they censured?
Reply: Due to the content of some of your posts they end up in the spam filter and those that get approved need to be fished out manually. ~ ctm
Meh… I wrote a comment at WUWT two days ago about the outrage at ACS, but it seems that nobody paid attention:
Isn’t amazing how Baum thinks that AGW is Science! Consensus is not Science and Science is not Consensus! By the late Michael Crichton…That it’s totally proven without a doubt! Wow! Good thing He isn’t a Scientist, or is he?? Either way He deserved this for it shows the real truth about what Scientists believe in many different fields…It’s a big HOAX!!!
Robert 13:32:27 ““Scientific American” has been hot on the ‘Global Warming’ bandwagon for years.”
Mine too! It is sad how so many publications have followed the AGW crowd! I was a long time subscriber to “Popular Science”! Loved that magazine and have almost all of the back issues to 1970! I just emailed them the other week because they’ve been trying to get me to subscibe again. I told them you’ve change to much to the “Left” and do not stick to Science! That they lost a subscriber!
For at least a year Anthony and others have been saying that the leadership of many scientific organizations did not represent the membership… finally the members themselves have had enough of the dishonesty…
Mike
Quick someone, send this to the Senate.
Science is (still) ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE!
Maybe now we can actually get grants for Climate Adaptation Technologies (CAT).
I’ve never seen so many people reference the scientific method and climate change before!
“Commonsense (13:58:21)
Yes, the IPCC and nearly all the other climate models have been proven wrong:
THE WARMING AND MELTING ARE FAR WORSE THAN THOSE MODELS PREDICT.
The models were not alarmist: quite the opposite.”
Do you have some links to back up that pretty bold statement?
THE real question.
How do “people” like Baum get the positions they get. ?
AND how is it to be stopped in the future. ?
Hear, Hear!
“Consensus primary meaning in my dictionary is unanimous. ” Then buy a better dictionary.
The grants some chemists are looking for are for Carbon sequestration chemicals
Just read the abstract of the linked article taken from the Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and written by autors affiliated to the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, U.S.A. and the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
These guys haven’t heard of aerial fertilization or if they have heard of it, they chose not to mention it on their abstract.
Scientific American spent much of the 1980’s running articles “proving” SDI couldn’t possibly work. Of course it did and the Soviet Union collapsed. They lost me then.
I very rarely flick through a copy in the local library nowadays. Don’t know how they stay in business. Kind of like New Scientist which seems to be a clever satirical magazine spoofing science with the very rare real science article thrown in.
With the other chemists who have posted here, I share the profound disgust at anti-science nonsense disgracing the good name of our profession.
Chemistry is above all an experimental science and those who author pieces like this have no place in it.
As a chemist, this certainly fits with what I’ve often heard:
“The chemists are revolting!”
This is the ACS’s official stance on global warming:
“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.”
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=0cbd57b5-5766-456d-800b-680b88c1c8bf
Hayden’s great-he authors the little newsletter “The Energy Advocate”-and he I believe coined the phrase WRT climate models “Garbage in, Gospel out”.
Has sanity returned to American science, or is this only a brief interlude in our headlong plunge into Hades? Will this be a signal to the membership of the many other scientific organizations, which have been compromised, to raise up and overthrow the political puppets that have been placed above them? If this is the beginning of the stirrings of a new scientific honesty, it is due in no small part to the work of WUWT, CA and many others on the internet. Thanks to all here who have helped to bring about some progress on a very difficult problem.
Mike
I think Rudy Baum is another William, Connelly (gatekeeper of the climate pages of Wikipedia.)
Rudy has a certain world view and doesnt like giving those he disagrees with too much publicity. The first link shows his financial support for Obama and other democrats-nothing wrong with that-most of the states supported the Democrats.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/rudy-baum.asp?cycle=08
The next link gives a bit of background on him
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rudy_Baum
More revealing perhaps is this piece, in which he defended the highly biased stance he took on AGW which extended to his activities at the ACS
Rudy wrote;
“…In the case of the global climate, critics of our coverage maintain we don’t present the views of the handful of scientists who publicly disagree that humans are affecting Earth’s climate. But we have reported that critics exist, and we’ve reported their views when their criticism has been published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at scientific meetings.
No we do not give critics of global climate change the same amount of ink we give the far larger number of scientists who think global climate change is real. Quite bluntly, they don’t deserve it. They are a tiny minority whose analysis of the available data is rejected by the vast majority of the scientists who have reviewed that data. As good journalists, we acknowledge the critics existence, and then move on to cover the dramatic story that is unfolding around us.”
The guy is perfectly entitled to express his views, whether he should use the ACS as his personal mouthpiece might be another matter however.
Tonyb
Anthony
Interesting reaction – in my case there are rumblings to also remove me as editor of Aust. Inst. Geoscientists News but from the climate changers, not sceptics.
A telling reaction was a comment about the recent Plimer-Warden debate held in Perth, 9 July – “Just wanted to say what a fantastic event it was last night. Well Done! I was thoroughly entertained by both the speakers and the audience members. It was so interesting to note the different opinions on a topic I had thought was universally accepted. I hope we can do something similar again in future. Fantastic.”
Comment was from an Australian National University academic, (who remains anonymous) but it does show how insulated they are from their professional colleagues.
Off Topic — They are at it again! Those wacky green adventurers, this time in a sailboat heading for the NW Passage to prove the Global Warming impacts on the Arctic.
Follow the Mission Here..
http://www.aroundtheamericas.org
I will be Posting Canadian Ice Service Maps of the Passage on my site
http://www.theclimateheretic.com
and commenting on the progress, perhaps WUWT can also follow along.
Consensus – Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
Please read his response (from which came the “startled” comment) at this link:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8730editor.html
“I am startled that they so blithely impugn the integrity of so many of their colleagues.”
He is therefore not startled that there seems to be such a large number dissenters, more that they’re being nasty. In other words, his opinions have not been challenged – in his own mind – one tiny bit.
And why say, “Some of the letters I received are not fit to print.”? Who decides that? If they really are not fit to print, don’t mention them, unless you’re attempting to imply something about the character of the writers.
It seems he has his agenda, his beliefs, and will stick with them regardless. That is not the mark of a scientist; it’s the mark of an advocate. Shame on him.
If we were doing a list of magazines I can’t and won’t subscribe to any more I would add Discover and Skeptical Inquirer
Gary Lund (13:48:08) :
“….As a dues paying member of the ACS for over 30 years, I had had enough of Rudy Baum’s pro-alarmist editorials….. I was thanked for my letter and iniformed that unfortuantely the editor determined it would not be printed…..”
DaveE (13:50:59) :
“….To be fair, many of the protests were in relation to the manner in which people of contrary views were treated by that editorial, not necessarily disagreeing with AGW per-sé……”
Dave, we have no way of knowing how many letters were “disagreeing with AGW per-sé” since the entire number were not printed. Given the bias of the editor…..
I also would like to thank WUWT for honest science debate. Very refreshing reading.
The irony here is the editor, who is a journalist, is telling scientists (chemists for the most part) that only idiots don’t toe the consensus line and deny the truth. Perhaps this editor needs to get past the propaganda and find out why so many of the scientists who make up the ACS are having such a difficult time coming to the same conclusions he has.
THE WHEELS ARE FALLING OFF
Thanks to Burt Bacharach / Bob Hilliard and The New Christy Minstrels (Three wheels on my wagon)
Three wheels on my wagon,
And I’m still rolling along
The Scierntists are chasing me
Reasons fly, right on by
But I’m singing the same ol’ song
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
AGWarmists, they never just say die
A mile in the sky there’s a hidden warm
And we can watch those skeptics fry
Go galloping by
Two wheels on my wagon,
And I’m still telling a lie
Them scientists are agin me
Flaming facts, burn my ears
But I’m singing a scary song
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
Pious ones, they never say die
Half a mile up the sea will rise, a hidden cave
Where we can sell our carbon pie
Go galloping by
One wheel on my wagon,
And I’m still rolling along
That planet Earth
Not all in flames, drowning too
But I’m singing a desperate song
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
Delussionals folk never say die
Right round that turn there’s a global scare
But it never arrives, don’t know why
Go galloping by
No wheels on my wagon,
Stuck here in the cold … goddam Sun
None to sell carbon credits to
Folks are mad, things look bad
But I’m singing a happy song
I’m singing a higgity, termperatures, they go high
Tenured profs never say die
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
Delussional folks never say die
Right round that turn there’s a global scare
But it never arrives, don’t know why
Go galloping by
It’s amazing how there were merely “dozens of letters” objecting to the article when ACS has about 160k members. Clearly global warming ~snip~ make up for their lack of numbers by speaking loudly.
Just look at Howard Hayden’s remarks: ” ‘Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’ ”
Now surely, as anyone with a sheer cursory knowledge of the field knows, ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are terms that have been used interchangeably for decades. Just look at this scientific paper from the 1970’s which uses both terms in its title:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460
I’m sure Mr. Howard Hayden is a brilliant man, but these are the reasons why we should leave climate science to climate scientists.
These people resent being called !snip~ yet they recycle the same Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about volcanoes spewing more CO2 than humans and the lack of a tropical tropospheric hotspot disproving AGW. Mr. Baum is just calling a spade a spade.
peter_dtm (13:13:15) . Warwick Hughes and Douglas Hoyt present a global warming “scorecard” — see
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Reed Coray
“I also would like to thank WUWT for honest science debate. Very refreshing reading.”
Debate? Admittedly, I rarely mire in ~snip~, but since when has WUWT ever hosted “honest science debate”? My brief little foray into WUWT’s climate change ~snip~ has revealed the site to be little more than an echo chamber for~snip~.
Mr. Anthony Watts posts an article about isolated, local temperature lows, like-minded, holier-than-thou followers chide in about how smart they were and about how AGW realists MUST be wrong about the theory because a city that comprises 0.00001% of the Earth’s surface is witnessing snow in July, and everyone pats each other on the back. This in no way advances our understanding of climate science, but then again, what do I know? I’m an “alarmist.” If throwing around that word is fair game, then why can’t I call you people ~snip~?
[Reply: Equating someone with a different view than yours to Holocaust deniers is clearly insulting, and unacceptable here. ~dbstealey, mod.]
Nobody want to see thier organization or members collectively or separately thrown under the bus.
What this says is that the guy making the statement of support for Political AGendaWarming was not in the habit of communicating with those whom he was supposed to be representing. Oops. He forgot to take the temperature of the place.
We are soldiers in a vicious war of truth.
Forced-corruption is the enemy.
Brave chemists, your sacrifice in defense of future civilization has been noted.
Sincerely,
Paul Vaughan
Ecologist, Outdoor Enthusiast
Eric B
You are confused. Everyone knows the evil conservative Frank Luntz forced everyone to use the term “climate change” just a few years ago.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/windy-citys-climate-plan/?apage=2#comment-38117
Please get a proper historical perspective, otherwise you will be thrown out of the believer’s club.
Quote 1 “If your result needs a statistician then you should design a better experiment”
Quote 2 “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”
I suppose if Ernest Rutherford were around today he would add climate science.
Comment is Free if you agree.
“Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming.”
Baum’s incredulity at the outrage and tone of the letters is simply a mark of his total cluelessness about how wrong he is. True Believers like him are in for the shock of their lives. It’s a good thing for him and his ilk that tarring and feathering are out of style.
JLawson (12:46:16) :
“Scientific American” has been hot on the ‘Global Warming’ bandwagon for years. I got angry at first – then I started ignoring the junk articles, but I’ve written a few e-mails specifying that I’d like to see more SCIENCE than OPINION from them.
Don’t know that it’s done any good – though I’ve noticed the last few issues are a bit less AGW-centric.
Please tell us when ever it has any real science contents again. I used to subscribe in the early 80’s when the magazine was simply fascinating, if a bit over my head. I stopped subscribing some 10 years ago when I could not stand the junk anymore. Apparently it is still going down hill. Compare the issues from 1980-82 (I still have them) and today.
Eric B (16:11:53) :
Ive always found it fascinating how flat earthers are compared to people skeptical of an unproven hypothesis… Flat earthers, where the consensus scientific group of their day.. Oh the irony 🙂
Eric B (16:04:32) : said
“….It’s amazing how there were merely “dozens of letters” objecting to the article when ACS has about 160k members. Clearly global warming deniers make up for their lack of numbers by speaking loudly….”
“…Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief….”
And Gary Lund said “…I was thanked for my letter and informed that unfortuantely the editor determined it would not be printed…”
Do you know the actual number of letters received??? In answering customer complaint letters, we in quality, were cautioned each letter received from an irate customer represented 100 dissatisfied customers who didn’t bother to write. Dozens of letters is significant from a Quality Control point of view. This is especially true if it could mean the loss of a job or promotion.
The response from the ACS members (whom I’d assume most of them have at least a degree in science or other fields) seems to vindicate that the 31,000 individuals who signed the petition against AGW/ACC are indeed REAL scientists. The skeptical view is mainstream and growing, despite the effort that the MSM try to portray the contrary.
And what is Mr. Baum’s education and credential anyways?
@Eric B
“Hey friend wake up I’m throwing rocks at your window pane get out of bed I got something to say.”
The hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming is not proven.
Don’t be aggressive we all have differing views but lets remain civilised with it.
Take care
Gail Combs (15:42:56) :
Dave, we have no way of knowing how many letters were “disagreeing with AGW per-sé” since the entire number were not printed. Given the bias of the editor
Very true, I can only go by those that were. Given the editor bias, not fit for printing may mean, “Does too much to discredit the AGW cause.” I don’t know
Eric B (16:11:53) :
“I also would like to thank WUWT for honest science debate. Very refreshing reading.”
Debate? Admittedly, I rarely mire in anti-science propaganda blogs, but since when has WUWT ever hosted “honest science debate”? My brief little foray into WUWT’s climate change denial has revealed the site to be little more than an echo chamber for flat-earthers.
Mr. Anthony Watts posts an article about isolated, local temperature lows, like-minded, holier-than-thou followers chide in about how smart they were and about how AGW realists MUST be wrong about the theory because a city that comprises 0.00001% of the Earth’s surface is witnessing snow in July, and everyone pats each other on the back. This in no way advances our understanding of climate science, but then again, what do I know? I’m an “alarmist.” If throwing around that word is fair game, then why can’t I call you people “deniers”?
Personally, I couldn’t give a damn if you call me a denier. The fact that I don’t deny that climate changes is irrelevant to you but I will allow you your infantile rant.
Try casting your posting in a different denier mould, then post on RC.
See if it ever reaches the pages, then say debate isn’t allowed here!
DaveE.
MikeE
“Ive always found it fascinating how falt earthers are compared to people skeptical of an unproven hypothesis”
First off, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. In science parlance, “theory” is not merely a hunch but rather something substantiated by mountains of evidence. Popular theories include the theory gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, theory of atoms, theory of cells, and the theory of evolution.
I don’t deny that AGW is unproven. Look at gravity and the theory of atoms, those are unproven too. But I can only imagine what scorn I would meet if I told a Ph.D. professor in chemistry that he’s all wrong, that in fact Democritus was right and atoms can’t be split.
“Flat earthers, where the consensus scientific group of their day”
Yeah, among philosophers. There weren’t many scientists in Aristotle’s day…
One of the larger classes of skeptics includes Scientists speaking outside of their field. They are applying their regular scientific skepticism, but the problem is that they apply it to a field they have not been actively researching in.
This is evident from the people that you list. Those of you who are not so religiously attached to AGW ‘skepticism’ – here’s a challenge for you. Take any three people from the above list. Put their name into scholar.google.com, and see what field they are publishing in. Do their publications put them in a position to be able to make serious challenges to the AGW consensus?
Let’s take the first few. Everett Langford is not a climate scientist, he researches weapons. Dennis Malpass? An organic chemist. Howard Hayden? A Biochemist. You see a pattern emerging; the only atmospheric chemist on the list is quite reserved with what they say.
Eric B (16:04:32) : “I’m sure Mr. Howard Hayden is a brilliant man, but these are the reasons why we should leave climate science to climate scientists.”
The entire idea of turning off one’s rational faculties on any topic except one’s own professional speciality is antithetical to the very concept of science. “Climate science” should be defensible against rational analysis performed by anyone.
Indeed, many of the most telling arguments can be understood by any reasonably intelligent and rational person. As it happens, I have just put up an article demonstrating exactly this for one of the most decisive arguments about AGW:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/how-see-yourself-global-warming-climate-models-are-false
If that doesn’t make sense to you, please tell us what special mental faculty is possessed by a “climate scientist” that the rest of us mere mortals simply cannot acquire?
Eric the half a B @16:04:32
You are a Monty Puthon Sketch, Sir.
Stacy
“The hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming is not proven.”
I agree with you there, none of the models are proven and mainstream models vary in their 100 year projections by a factor of three. The only thing scientists agree on is that CO2 has been the primary forcing the past 30 years, CO2 will continue to play a role in global temperatures, and that it would be in our best interest to do something about.
By the way, do you ~snip~ the fact that the AGW THEORY has evolved beyond the status of “hypothesis”?
gt
“The response from the ACS members (whom I’d assume most of them have at least a degree in science or other fields) seems to vindicate that the 31,000 individuals who signed the petition against AGW/ACC are indeed REAL scientists.”
“Dozens of letters” proves that the 31k scientists on the petition (which once included none other than Geri Halliwell and John Grisham) “are indeed REAL scientists”? Amateurish mistakes like these really prove that the petition underwent absolutely no third-party verification.
Re: Scientific American, I let my subscription lapse when they pilloried Bjorn Lomborg.
Ron de Haan, I also think of polywater when told “the science of catastrophic AGW is settled”.
When we can actually do controlled experiments on our planet’s climate system, then maybe we’ll gain some measure of certainty.
Eric the 0.5 x B,
The AGW HYPOTHESIS has not evolved beyond that; the observational data falsify the AGW HYPOTHESIS.
DaveE
“Try casting your posting in a different denier mould, then post on RC.”
No, it’s no fun on RC. On RC everything is well-sourced, and the regulars and webmasters are climate scientists themselves. Here we’ve got the garden-variety neoconservative with little to no understanding of fundamental science.
The ACS would not have come out with a pro-AGW stance unless the elected directors agreed with it. If normal, sane people start standing for election on an anti-AGW stand, then the incumbents will start to get an idea that have done something very wrong. So for members of the ACS who don’t like its pro-AGW position, stand for election as soon as possible. That goes for every other professional socieity too.
Eric B (16:38:59) :
Proof of climate change isnt actually proof of the cause, with gravity we have gravitational lensing that PROVE that mass bends time and space around it. We know co2 is a green house gas, and i would defiantly class GHG theory as a theory. But to make the leap to claim co2 is the main climate driver IS a hypothesis. Thats what AGW is about, not basic greenhouse theory.
And the flat earthe hypothesis was still the “consensus science” through the dark ages. I could easily draw many parrallels between them, and the stance you and many like minded individuals take in regards to debate, and objective scientific method.
Ron House
Perhaps I was unclear. I use the term “climate scientist” broadly, as climate science itself is an interdisciplinary field. There are computer scientists, chemists, physicists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, biologists, geologists, statisticians, etc. who are climate scientists, at least by my personal definition. That’s because they apply their particular field on a climatological scale. It by no means suggests that every physicist, statistician, etc. is a climate scientist.
Eric B – I’m not sure you can even claim that scientists “agree on” CO2 as a primary anything. Some make that case, and others support that position to one degree or another, but your argument loses all weight when you attempt to make an absolute out of it.
As for AGW theory vs hypothesis – do we yet have criteria that can prove it true (or false) with a respectable degree of certainty? It seems to me that none of the test cases to date properly reflect real-world conditions.
Gail Combs
“In answering customer complaint letters, we in quality, were cautioned each letter received from an irate customer represented 100 dissatisfied customers who didn’t bother to write. Dozens of letters is significant from a Quality Control point of view. This is especially true if it could mean the loss of a job or promotion.”
This is fuzzy math, not that climate change deniers are unfamiliar with underhanded mathematics.
But I’ll indulge you.
Let’s say there were 50 letters. 50 x 100= 5000. 5000/160,000=3.125%
Ironically, this is comparable to the number of active climate scientists who dispute global warming:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
According to this study, 97.4% of climate scientists and 82% of Earth scientists agree that the globe is warming and that man-made contributions are the a significant factor in the warming.
We are clearly at a ‘tipping point’ in the whole AGW ‘debate’.
Maybe if everyone here wrote to the editors of their own respective subscribed magazines with their own views we could really start the snowball rolling.
Eric B (16:38:59) :
MikeE
“Ive always found it fascinating how falt earthers are compared to people skeptical of an unproven hypothesis”
First off, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. In science parlance, “theory” is not merely a hunch but rather something substantiated by mountains of evidence. Popular theories include the theory gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, theory of atoms, theory of cells, and the theory of evolution.
I don’t deny that AGW is unproven. Look at gravity and the theory of atoms, those are unproven too. But I can only imagine what scorn I would meet if I told a Ph.D. professor in chemistry that he’s all wrong, that in fact Democritus was right and atoms can’t be split.
“Flat earthers, where the consensus scientific group of their day”
Yeah, among philosophers. There weren’t many scientists in Aristotle’s day…
WOW.
AGW came to the table as a full fledged theory, substantiated by mountains of evidence, based I presume on a whole 30 years of observation which now appears to be going teats up.
Given http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif I wouldn’t trust the World product too much.
Don’t give me that it agrees with HadCRUT. Why should I believe them when all they want to do is prevent others from checking their data?
DaveE.
JEM
“I’m not sure you can even claim that scientists “agree on” CO2 as a primary anything. Some make that case, and others support that position to one degree or another, but your argument loses all weight when you attempt to make an absolute out of it.”
Check the link I posted in an earlier post, there’s a pretty robust consensus that CO2 is a significant forcing.
Gee, I really opened a can of worms. If someone on here agrees with scientists the deniers let out the lions. I think I’m going to stick to sites that perform primary research, like GISS and NOAA.
You guys might be interested to learn that not a single scientific organization disputes AGW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
But you all probably presume to know more than these thousands of scientists?
David Archibald:
“So for members of the ACS who don’t like its pro-AGW position, stand for election as soon as possible. That goes for every other professional socieity too.”
With numbers like these:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I don’t think deniers will be winning elections anytime soon.
Are you the David Archibald who posts videos on Youtube? On Y!A the other day a regular was asking a question about your credentials:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtEehEJ6krBiaO7i0hqbUa3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090729145627AA29ZHv
DaveE
“based I presume on a whole 30 years of observation which now appears to be going teats up”
This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
Eric B:
“No, it’s no fun on RC. On RC everything is well-sourced, and the regulars and webmasters are climate scientists themselves. Here we’ve got the garden-variety neoconservative with little to no understanding of fundamental science.”
I’m not sure you could paint with any wider a brush than that.
Eric B, I am sorry, but your statements are idiotic.
Using terms like “denier” and “flat earther” just make you look ridiculous.
I have never used those terms and I I have never heard other scientists use those terms.
Robert Wood
“the observational data falsify the AGW HYPOTHESIS”
And which observational data would that be? Apparently GISS, RSS, NOAA, about every scientific organization, etc. missed the memo…
Robert Wood
Dammit man, How can I ever take Eric B seriously again I ask you?
I have this B&W image of Eric the half a bee in my head now!
It is clear that his thinking has been befuddled by AGW, he just can’t take the heat and has to defend his untenable position by decrying the readers of WUWT.
I’m sure that Leif would love to know that he is out of his depth in disbelieving the AGW meme, as would the physicists & chemists I know.
DaveE.
It all began when some green idiot described something he/she supposed in his/her empty skull to be bad, as being “bad because it is a chemical“.
Could some one of those green donkeys tell me what in the world, including them, is not chemical?
So, we chemists, are the bad guys, the same as polluters (morons´killers).
Included in those chemical non sense are those supposed “organical” products, these, supposedly again, not considered “chemicals”, so…LOL, a mineral KNO3 is called “organical” and the same KNO3, from a chemical company, it is not “organical”, which is the difference?
And..the CO2 nonsense…the same kind of “urban myth”, to say the least.
Eric B (17:13:18) :
DaveE
“based I presume on a whole 30 years of observation which now appears to be going teats up”
This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
And I can also confirm that the top of the sine wave I am looking at on my oscilloscope indicates the highest positive voltage on screen.
DaveE.
Gee Eric B, you seem to place a lot of faith in polls.
What do you suppose the answer to this polling question would be?
“I believe my organization (fill in the blank) should limit debate on climate science because those with opposing views should not be heard.”
And BTW, for someone who keeps saying his time is better spent elsewhere, why are you still here?
Just curious Eric B., What else would “climate scientists” be studying other than the current theories about man made disaster? It seems to be that if a “climate scientist” disagreed with the orthodoxy, he would no longer be one. Saying that 97+% of climate scientists believe in anthropological GW isn’t surprising since that is all the field is.
I was a member of the ACS from 1994 to 2009. After sending in several letters to the editor complaining of this Rudy Baum and his liberal slant to the “scientific” publication, I finally gave up. I complained to the President of the ACS and others but never received a response. I finally fiquit the ACS because I refuse to support an organization that has overstepped its boundaries. The ACS is NOT supposed to be a political organization. It is supposed to be a scientific organization.
I hope that all those ACS members that are fed up with Rudy Baum and his ilk do as I did…quit the ACS.
This is excellent! I am not at all surprised by the tone and intensity of the response letters to C&EN’s editor.
Many chemical engineers are also member of ACS. The chemical engineers and chemists I meet with regularly, and speak to occasionally, are very much skeptics of any man-made influence on climate. The undeniable fact that CO2 rises regularly, while global temperature oscillates is sufficient proof that there is absolutely no validity to the IPCC’s claims, and that there is zero reason to modify fossil fuel use. When I give my speeches, chemical engineers and chemists in the audience recognize this instantly.
One of the world’s most prominent chemical engineers, Dr. Pierre R. Latour, PE, started a similar uproar in Hydrocarbon Processing magazine in January, 2009. His letter to the editor may be found here: http://tinyurl.com/nutznq. Hydrocarbon Processing is one of the two most-respected industry journals read world-wide among chemical engineers and energy professionals.
Dr. Latour’s brief bio may be found here, starting with paragraph 5:
http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2004/236.html
DaveE
“he just can’t take the heat”
Thus far, I’ve answered (I think) everyone who’s responded to me, despite being gang-raped by their intuitive assumptions that supposedly disprove AGW. I have to leave home soon so regrettably this ping pong match between AGW realist-AGW ~snip~ is coming to a close.
“I’m sure that Leif would love to know that he is out of his depth in disbelieving the AGW meme”
Well, I’m not Hansen or anyone. I merely advocate the conclusions of the consensus. If you believe that the thousands of scientists who advocate the issue are “out of their depth,” I’d suggest you write a peer-reviewed paper on the issue on submit it to a journal.
Have you heard about Nancy Oreskes’s study, by the way? It concluded that, out of 920 some peer reviewed articles (some of which concerned paleoclimatology, however), 0 of them disputed the AGW consensus.
I should hasten to amend my last post, to state that the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing were not in any way the target of Dr. Latour’s remarks.
Eric B (17:13:18) :
This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
Forgot to also mention on this one, though I have done before…
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
Looks pretty flat from the 30s on the original. Why’s it changed?
DaveE.
Karl B
“Using terms like “denier” and “flat earther” just make you look ridiculous.”
My terminology is hyperbole, perhaps. I see it as fighting fire with fire. Almost everyone on this board presumes to know more than the thousands of scientists who work in the field of climate scientist, which is quite ridiculous and presumptuous itself.
Eric B (16:58:46) :
“….This is fuzzy math, not that climate change deniers are unfamiliar with underhanded mathematics….”
Specifically it was the number given to me by the lawyers and VP of Quality at a OC Drug manufacturer when I was liaison between quality and the law firm handling complaints., Since the firm is now defunct I do not have acess to their statistics. Your 50 letters could easily be hundreds since there is concrete evidence that not all the letters were published.
I am merely pointing out that your down playing the complaint letters on the basis of the word “dozens” is incorrect on two points. “dozens” does not represent the total number of letters recieved and “dozens” does not represent the total number of chemists who viewed the article with distaste.
“Dozens” does show the word “consensus” is incorrect since ONE skeptic means there is no “consensus” I am a chemist and I am a skeptic, so are others posting here. NO consensus
Well, for heaven’s sake, the question is not whether the climate has warmed 0.7C for the 20th century. (Actually, the raw data per USHCN station for the US puts the trend at +0.14C, which is “adjusted” to ~ +0.7C, but nver mind that.)
If the globe warmed 0.7C over the 21st century as it has supposedly done over the 20th, we could all pack up and go home — no emergency here.
The question is whether global temperatures will increase ~3.5C over the 21st century, which is the IPCC midline projection. That’s five times the adjusted rate of the last century. So far, since 2001 (which is when the century “officially” began), we have seen an actual decline.
I happen to agree that some of the warming is anthropogenic. But there are lots of anthropogenic causes that have little if anything to do with CO2. Land use and “dirty snow” spring to mind.
I also believe a great majority of the warming since 1977 is a result of the six major oceanic-atmospheric oscillations going from cold to warm phase one by one until 2001. For several years they were all in warm phase, and temperatures plateaued. Now they are starting to go cool and we see a drop.
AGW hypothesis is a loaded term.
It can be true even if CO2-theory is mostly false (direct forcings are probably more or less true; positive feedback assertions are highly questionable).
It can be true in ways that the best course of action is doing nothing about it.
It can be true even if the amount of potential warming turns out much less than feared.
We are not a bunch of idiots, here. Please stop treating us as if we have never considered these issues. I would also like to know why we should necessarily trust scientific organizations that refuse to release their adjustment procedures so they can be reproduced.
I will add that the PDO was not even described by science until the late 1990s. The field is new and wide open. We re not disputing the possibility of splitting the atom. We are disputing that which is not established, such as positive feedback theory.
And, as a matter of fact, if positive feedback theory is wrong (as it begins to appear to be), and if Monckton is correct that the 4-part forcing equation is exaggerated in all parts, the whole theory falls to bits.
EricB:
wrote “…According to this study, 97.4% of climate scientists and 82% of Earth scientists agree that the globe is warming and that man-made contributions are the a significant factor in the warming…”
who would dispute, that the globe has been warming and that land use change and UHI are a significant factor ? Who would disagree that man(n)-made-type data analysis contributions were another significant factor ?
I think, the scientific bodies should poll their members on this issue and then present the result. Otherwise the bodies represent only the opiniopn of a few. Actuially, they don’t have to have an opinion on a matter of open research or politics at all.
Eric B at (17:13:18) writes: “This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. ”
Huh?????????????????????????????????
Eric B (16:04:32) :
No, I don’t agree. But in order to not be a hypocrite about it, please provide your credentials showing everyone that you are a climate scientist, and thus by your own rules, qualified to comment.
You are mistaken believing that CO2=AGW hypothesis is anything more than that. It is a falsified hypothesis, based on computer models. There is no real world, actual measurement showing the effect of “A” in GW. None of the models can predict the climate. None.
As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer points out, no one has falsified the theory that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability. Do you even understand what that means?
If not, I’ll explain: Prior to the invention of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, natural climate variability was, and remains, the generally accepted theory of global climate change. In order for a new hypothesis to replace the existing theory, the new hypothesis must be able to explain reality better than the theory it is trying to replace. GCMs have been unable to predict the climate.
Dr. Spencer makes clear that in the Scientific Method, the way to knock off a hypothesis, a theory or a law is by falsifying it. Since no one has been able to falsify the existing theory of natural climate variability, the AGW hypothesis fails. The winner, and still champ, is natural variability.
On the other hand, the CO2=AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. If you like, I can provide at least fifty papers that have the cumulative effect of shredding the CO2=AGW hypothesis. Just ask.
Finally, where is the AGW? The planet is at just about the same temperature now that it was at thirty years ago, despite steadily rising CO2: click
[PS- it’s Naomi Oreskes, not Nancy. You’re a newbie on this subject, aren’t you? Maybe you should read this deconstruction of Naomi Oreskes to help you get up to speed: click]
Eric B (17:09:21) :
You dont really understand science huh, if we stuck with “consensus” science, there would still be no such thing as plate tectonics, we;d all live on a flat earth, with the sun revolving around us. Evolution wouldnt exist, and the universe would be static… There is a reason why science is supposed to be testable. Before its classed as a scientific fact. And the suppression of debate on an issue has never aided in the advancement of knowledge. All the great break through haven’t come from group think. We are too herd like in nature. It has come from individuals challenging the consensus views of their day. And proving their theories through experiment/observation. AGW comes up short on that card. There should be an observable hot spot in the upper troposphere in the tropics… there isnt.
The climate has always changed, so pointing at a trend isnt proof of the course… to believe it is, would require you to believe in a static climate. Through the ice cores and sediment analysis we know that the holocene period is punctuated with periods of rapid climate change, many dwarfing the current trends. And we are currently comfortably inside the bounds of oscillation of this period. So we know that the current trends “could” be due to natural phenomenon.
I am of the opinion myself that we do effect climate, but im not sold on our contribution driving the climate. And i wont, unless its proven.
Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
the EricB wrote:
“Almost everyone on this board presumes to know more than the thousands of scientists who work in the field of climate scientist, which is quite ridiculous and presumptuous itself.”
if you just look at a few of the most influential publications of the real climate scientists…
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6473
… the funny thing about everybody’s presumption is
… that it is most likely true.
Smokey (17:55:54) :
Sorry, but you can’t discount that Wikipedia contend that Benny Peiser withdrew his assessment. The fact that he didn’t is of course immaterial from the AGW viewpoint, but they did indeed contend that.
Any attempt to amend that contention is of course vehemently denied, as is any opinion or contradiction to the Connelly monopoly of the Wiki. I can’t remember where the Kim fiasco is on the web 🙁
DaveE.
course=cause That is annoying me sorry.
DaveE, I was not aware of that. Got a link, so I can read up on it? Thanks.
Roger Sowell (17:28:12) :
I just LOVE Temple’s “Climate scientists do not measure a “global temperature,” but instead use deviations from historic averages, from a massive number of stations. This is an extremely accurate and reliable method of measurement.”
Mmmmmmmmmmm
How do you measure a deviation without measuring a temperature? I’ve often asked myself that!
DaveE.
It only takes one straw to break the camels back… Keep it coming real scientists – I know you are out there.
Thank you, readers of ACS for having a backbone and standing up to the politico-religious indoctrination that is AGW.
Thank you also Anthony for posting – articles like this give me hope that the world has not gone completely mad after all…
Consensus in the English language is defined firstly as unanimous or general agreement; and secondly group solidarity of belief or sentiment.
The use of the word consensus has become deminished over time.
If we discussed temperature using the absolute scale the average temperature of the earth’s surface would be 320 degrees absolute and consideration of tenths of a degree change would seem ridiculous.
leave climate science to climate scientists.
That’s as bad as leaving war to the generals.
Smokey (18:12:13) :
Sorry Smokey, best I can do is the name Soloman who tried to amend it. (Spelling may be wrong). Kim is a male & had a heated argument over it.
DaveE.
Thanks to the brave folks at Climate Depot and Whatupwiththat and many other uppity Americans, Gore and company has not gotten away with politizing “science” and railroading his global tax agenda. They had the courage to stand up even when the Left discussed arresting “deniers” for thought “crimes against humanity” and the majority of scientists in the US merely went along to get along with their far left wing overseers within science.
Now that the lie has been exposed, the liars using science for their socialist politics must be exposed and demoted. They do not deserve positions of leadership.
Waxman will see about this! LOL
Eric B (16:49:01) :
The credential of every signee of the petition project is independently verified.
And it’s interesting that the letters to the editor overwhelmingly rejects Rudy Baum’s editorial. If the ACW view are prevalent in the ACS society, why haven’t the proponents expressed their support of Baum’s article and stance by the boatload? Maybe the people (ACS members) who actually work in a scientific field know more and think more than those who blindly believe the hysterical propaganda spewed out by Al Gore and the like.
Eric B: So you are another guy of that gang who think CO2 is a black nasty gas. No, it is the gas YOU exhale and plants breath…and, BTW, it is heavier than the air so seek it down by your feet… (confused?)
Easy on Eric B people he started on the wrong foot right from the get go. I promised to be much more respectful toward people with a different view recently in the after effects of a heated dinner party discussion.
So in light of that I would simply say that Eric B started with a comment [ Eric B (15:03:36) ]that that made no sense when taken in context of this blog posting and has simply supported the initial impression I got and that was a appeal to authority message desperately trying to not appear as one. (Second one this week I might add ).
The Society’s official position was not the subject of this post, it was the actual editorial and it’s non-scientific position and remarks that sparked off the responses. These types of comments from the AGW supporters are the last tread on the stair when being pushed off the stage or the first step when trying to get on it.
I for one welcome Eric B and look forward to the comments he will make in the future because sometimes watching someone flounder around is far more fun than rescuing them right away.
I personally think we should leave statistics and statistical models to statisticians, but that’s just me.
This has been an awesome week… between ThinkLife or whatever and Eric B, I’ve had lots to entertain me on these windy, cool evenings… too windy to safely fly my R/C planes, too wavy on the lake to run the boats.
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank these two individuals for providing a fairly good body of material for my upcoming book 🙂
When ACS put out the “official” position on climate change, have they (the management of the Society) conducted a survey on what the members really think of the issue? If they have not, it is save to assume that the “official” position does not truely reflect the members’ view whatsoever.
Of course, after this fiasco, if the majority of the ACS members are supportive of the AGW theory, one would expect some kind of petition made by them that shows their collective stances. But so far it is the skeptical view that dominate the Letter to the Editor column. All six columns indeed.
not that climate change deniers are unfamiliar with underhanded mathematics.
Too funny! Considering the reluctance of AGW scientists to release their algorithms.
Easy on Eric B people he started on the wrong foot right from the get go. I promised to be much more respectful toward people with a different view recently in the after effects of a heated dinner party discussion.
I agree. He is posting in “hostile territory”. (Though less hostile, perhaps, than he might believe; there are a number of pro-AGW posters here whose comments are welcome.)
When one is in an environment one perceives as hostile, one is more likely to come out swinging.
OTOH, Eric, beware . . . many scientists are becoming skeptical. Few are going the other way. And there are those among us who came to scoff, but stayed to pray!
John A (18:53:13) :
“I personally think we should leave statistics and statistical models to statisticians, but that’s just me.”
The thing is statistics is just playing around with numbers. And numbers can be made up… You can even make hockey sticks out of them.
While several of your points are reasonable, the consensus is a fabrication Eric.
Anytime you see people in agreement about everything, look for an outside source. In this case it’s staring you right in the eyes. RC is a group of advocates who were once scientists. A point which has been demonstrated by their continued support of the clearly false Mannian reconstructions, among other things.
Sorry for the OT Anthony. It’s a sticking point for me. I’ll leave the thread alone now.
John A — I’d like to leave cooking to cooks, but I can’t afford it.
The thing is statistics is just playing around with numbers. And numbers can be made up… You can even make hockey sticks out of them.
Particularly if you overweight them with bristlecone pines.
Pops (15:25:23) :
Consensus – Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
What’s the distinction between Consensus and Group Think?
“Eric B (16:04:32) :
These people resent being called ~snip~ yet they recycle the same Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about volcanoes spewing more CO2 than humans and the lack of a tropical tropospheric hotspot disproving AGW. Mr. Baum is just calling a spade a spade.”
And then there’s the truth. Krakatoa is spitting chunks again.
I have asked this question before and I will ask again: what will constitute a legitimate disproof of AGW/ACC? Name them and start from there. Otherwise, any empirical observation that contradicts climate models’ predictions can be dismissed as “oh it’s just weather” or “oh it’s natural variability; the long-term trend hasn’t changed”. Or is that the intent?
Oh my goodness.
It’s out of the bag now.
What, no consensus?
The fun is just beginning.
gt,
AGW does not have to be disproved by skeptics. Rather, the purveyors of the CO2=AGW hypothesis must be able to falsify the long accepted theory of natural climate variability.
Otherwise, mainstream theorists would have to falsify every crackpot hypothesis that comes along. It would be like saying that I have a hypothesis that gravity will reverse, and we will all fly off the Earth.
It’s not up to the mainstream scientists who accept the theory of gravity to disprove every wacky hypothesis. It is up to the promoters of the AGW hypothesis to falsify the theory of natural climate change. So far, they have failed.
I’m a Ph.D. chemist and 26 year ACS member. I began doubting AGW about 3 years ago when President Bush jumped aboard the bandwagon. More than anything, I can’t comprehend the “it’s settled” attitude from anyone with a scientific background.
Rudy Baum’s opinions burn me up sometimes. Now it appears that he and ACS are neither good for chemists or America. Each year ACS raises dues by a few dollars to help offset loss in membership and journal subscription revenue. What do we get besides a weekly chemical propaganda magazine and a cheap 25th anniversary pen?
It saddens me that my dues are really just supporting the jet setting fat cats of ACS, like Baum. For me this settles it. I’m going to contact ACS tomorrow and ask if I can get a prorated refund for canceling my membership now instead of at the end of the year. Then I’ll explain that Rudy Baum is the reason why I can no longer support ACS.
@DaveE (18:19:24) :
“Roger Sowell (17:28:12) :
I just LOVE Temple’s “Climate scientists do not measure a “global temperature,” but instead use deviations from historic averages, from a massive number of stations. This is an extremely accurate and reliable method of measurement.”
Mmmmmmmmmmm
How do you measure a deviation without measuring a temperature? I’ve often asked myself that!”
Not sure what you are getting at, Dave E. Temple is firmly in the AGW camp and trying to discredit Dr. Latour, and fails miserably. It appears to me that both the baseline temperature measurement, and deviations from that baseline are seriously suspect, as Anthony Watts and team have demonstrated.
The very notion of GISS (and possibly others) adjusting temperatures that were taken long before any of us were born is not science, it is making up data. My grandfather read a thermometer on his ranch daily and recorded the number in a log, by hand, with ink pen. He used care in both the reading and the recording. There were no urban heat island issues on the ranch, and no improper siting issues, either. The fence post on which the thermometer (and the rain gauge) were mounted was about shoulder height for him, almost exactly 5 feet above ground. The fence post with his thermometer and rain gauge were more than 50 feet from the house, because he wanted an accurate measure of the rain and did not want wind blowing around the house affecting the rain gauge.
For any modern “scientist” to take such raw data and change it through computer manipulations to suit a political agenda is wrong, and a slap in the face of those who recorded the measurements.
I am sure that there are thousands of WUWT readers who have ancestors who were just as meticulous as my grandfather, or who recorded such data themselves.
The chemical engineers know that the A in AGW is a farce, and laugh about it loudly and often. So do the chemists that I know.
As a 15-year member of ACS, I can state that I have never been asked for my views on climate change. I consider the “Official Position Statement” as a jump on the bandwagon to steer more grant money to chemistry. This is a very political statement – not scientific. Their statement starts by referencing other professional scientific organization’s statements. Their recommendations center around additional research.
People need to realize that the majority of chemists do not work in fields that are relevant to climate science. The basic chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is well known – it is the cross-disciplinary application of this science that is questionable.
Gary Lund
Please post here the letter you sent to ACS.
That would be fine, but they tend to get other people involved.
Both groups do.
[REPLY – Indeed. And they do tend to run up the expenses, do they not? And we cannot do without them. However . . . ~ Evan]
For what it is worth, I’m a PhD chemist and I was an ACS member for many years. I quit my membership about 3 years ago, because of the political activism of the Society. The “Society” used to be scientific; now they are nothing but political hacks who have totally abandonded science, and I will not support that chicanery. As with the MSM, they are slowly committing suicide by letting the morons withiin the DC Beltline dictate “attitude” and “policy” for the rest of the Nation. I predict that they will be bankrupt by 2011, just like NYT, etc. Unfortunately, the chemists of the Nation have allowed supercillious MORONS to control their once very proud association. VERY SAD! It is just like the current POTUS, and it is travesty. BYE, ACS!
I don’t know how many times you have to say it, Smokey, but apparently the previous 200 weren’t enough.
I expect the only reason many “scientists” either have accepted the AGW hypothesis or have no opinion on it (ie they allow organizations like a ACS to make a statement on their behalf) is that they have assumed that all of the voices yapping about it have done the same due diligence on data collection and science that they would do.
It is almost universal that once anyone with any sort of science background starts investigating, they quickly realize that there is no real science backing this hypothesis. And hypothesis it is… AGW is NOT a “theory”, which would require some degree of evidence.
I’ve noted before: in order to push an agenda, it is a typical tactic of one particular side to create a dichotomy and frame the excuse for the agenda as left vs. right, which is definitely what we are seeing here. It’s also their typical tactic to marginalize and mock any dissenters on a personal level.
Well so much for James Hansen the astronomer and almost the entire IPCC then…
Eric B (16:58:46) : So they sent the survey to a bunch of geological types (I have no problem with them) and a bunch of people in government agencies that are politically tainted. A few oceanographers. No atmospheric chemists or physicists, no non-governmental climatologists, or scores of other scientists who do work related to climate. Bad sample from the get-go. The first question is a no-brainer: yes, there has been warming since about the LIA. Do you BELIEVE man plays a role in it? Even I believe man has added to CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby raised the temp a little more that it would have been, so I would have to answer yes to that also.
The survey dodged the real questions:
Will man-produced CO2 cause catastrophic warming? NO! That’s the real question and the real answer. Is CO2 the main controlling agent of global temperature? NO, it is not!
Your survey is useless.
Chemical and Engineering News is generally a politically left-leaning publication.
As an ACS member (sigh), I fill out their survey every year I am offered one, about my likes and dislikes in C&EN. I have also complained about the bias of the editor. I have seen Rudy Baum editorials, not having anything to do with chemistry, bashing the Bush administration. I wonder what they do with my surveys, anyway.
Oh-I need to say something about climate — last night in Colo. Springs we set a new record low temperature for the date. Wait — that’s WEATHER, not Climate. My bad.
Climatology very quickly devolves to that of the paleoclimate. And that brings in many, many other disciplines, not all of them scientific — literature and history, for two. And of course, mathematics (writ large), chemistry, physics, geology, oceanography, and many, many others which are not, strictly speaking, within the direct realm of climatology.
It is a big science. It has big coattails. It has many camp followers. And like an 18th century army, it is only any good if well provided with rum and salt.
I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I think the makeup of editorial staffs of the major scientific publications are predominantly people who have been mediocre scientists in their own right, and are more skillful in the art of organizational politics. They ascended to their level of scientific incompetence long ago, and have moved in a direction where their lack of scientific ability is not the primary measure of success. The vast majority of ACS members wouldn’t want Baum’s job, and guess what, he probably couldn’t do theirs.
Of course we need to save the planet. Any one know a bank big enough? Maybe Jupiter?
The grants some chemists are looking for are for Carbon sequestration chemicals
Why not just dissolve it in water and pump it into big holes in the ground? Then when the government taxes soda pop we can pump it out and sell it on the black market.
I hear some guys are doing something not too different with plants and are making a fortune.
I’m a PhD Chemist, too, who recently let his ACS membership lapse. I find Baum obnoxious, and the continual credulous scare mongering in C and E News unbearable. One of their former editors wrote a piece that ran in the last year that suggested that something like 1 in 3 children have disabilities of some sort due to chemical exposure. I can’t be more specific because I had given up by the time I read it.
For years, all I read were the Science Concentrates, anyway. It was a good bet a lazy professor would put something from there on a cumulative exam or use it in class…
Eric B,
You state “climate change deniers” as part of your argument, the truth is that the climate is and always has been in a state of constant flux, change is the constant, stasis is not and never has been part of the biosphere.
The issue is whether climate change is ruled by natural cyclic variation governed by exterior and interior forces(milankovich cycle/solar influence/vulcanism/asteroid impacts etc) OR by man made influences chiefly the production of carbon dioxide by industrial output and activities.
Trying to claim a natural state of biosphere stasis and claiming the ability to cause and/or influence this climate stasis is questionable, in essence the question is does man have a discernable affect on the worlds climate?
The answer is either yes,no,maybe or perhaps the amount is certainly debatable isnt it?
The unknowns outweigh the knowns hugely, the case for the precautionary principle or the adaptation principle are open to debate but to choose one over the other BEFORE the facts are more fully known could be classified as gambling and that isnt science is it, the consequences of getting it wrong are going to be huge.
Many believe that acting on a show of hands(consensus) is anti science and that is only common sense, the amalgamation of science and politics in the form of AGW/MMCC/AAM is dangerous because it admits no doubt and admits no critics, the terrible way that critics of the consensus have been treated is nothing short of scandalous, the framing of your posts is saddening to read, so firmly do you hold to your beliefs that you find it acceptable to insult and demean the majority of highly gifted scientists and ordinary contributers of this blog.
If ‘real climate’ was as you have described it then why do they opperate a soviet style censorship of critisism and purging of dissent?
On this wonderful blog you can freely express an opinion or make an observation and it will be shown, the difference between the soviet style ‘real climate’ and WUWT is stark.
I make no claim to scientific qualification but I regard it as my right as a human being to question the orthodoxy, the nature of humanity is to question the status quo.
Just an add on thought so please snip as required.
I thought science was all theory which is then tested against observed actual reality, any theory which does not match real world observations is false.
What is the difference between between a scientist and an ideologue?
The true scientist readily admits ignorance and doubt whereas the ideologue admits neither doubt or ignorance, I put my trust in the former and reserve my distrust for the latter.
Amidst all the hoo-ha, has anyone noticed that nine of the ten warmest years of the 21st Century have occurred since 2000, and the tenth is happening as we write?
On the other hand, that’s equally true for the nine coolest. Go figure.
One of the best human beings I’ve ever met, also a sometimes surly curmudgeon, who knew his stuff cold, was a retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force who went on to be a research chemist at US Steel then retired from that to be my High School chemistry teacher. Finest class I’ve ever had from anyone. It was he who taught me about accuracy and precision and gave me the foundation for:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/
My explanation of why all of the AGW panic is just dancing in the error bands of lousy math.
I’ve just finished a bit looking at a single line of GIStemp that, IMHO, alone accounts for about 1/1000 C of rise (and maybe a bit more – it has compiler dependent behaviours…) Now since GIStemp is about 7000 lines, it wouldn’t take many of those to add up to something…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/gistemp-f-to-c-convert-issues/
It’s a technical “in the weeds” math and computer code posting, but readable. FWIW, I’ve made an analysis program to characterize how much GIStemp raises the temperature average in the data set as it moves from step to step (looks like about 1/2C at first blush). In the process of doing this I hacked together a bit of code that shows, given the way the data are stored as an INTEGER with 1/10C significance; simple choices in how to add up the temperatures / divide by the count of temps to get the average can change the warming by about 0.6C.
Further, there is an interesting trend to that average of temps (by month): Only winters get a lot warmer. Summers do not warm up. Mr. McGuire also taught me that the gas laws do not take the summer off…
So how does CO2 manage to work in winter, but not in summer?… it can’t.
WIth thanks to Chemistry Teachers everywhere, kudos to the members of the Chemical Society!
And for the person who was looking for an introduction to what’s broken in the AGW thesis, I have up several pages at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/
Now including a repost of what started here on WUWT as a comment:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/agw-basics-of-whats-wrong/
Roger Sowell (19:55:00) :
My point Roger, was that I can’t see how you can measure a deviation without taking a temperature measurement.
DaveE.
Wikipedia antics:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
“For this reason, when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.
“Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
“Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.”
Read the comments as well – some superb writing by ‘economart’ about objective truth.
Re the issue of temps above 80 degrees north have a look a this
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Click on each year since 1958 to 2009 does anyone discern any trend or warming? If so please advise us ASAP. Though the pole was warming dramatically! another blatant lie/Fraud
re previous “I thought” the pole etc…apologies
Climate Heretic (18:49:52) :
…………..
I for one welcome Eric B and look forward to the comments he will make in the future because sometimes watching someone flounder around is far more fun than rescuing them right away.
Lol – I agree keep it up Eric. Idiotic, hysterical juvenile postings like yours are all I ever see from warmers (and some lame attempts to “blind by science” on RC) and it is actually this attitude that led me to investigate the science behind this hypothesesis (Catastrophic AGW). I drew my own conclusions, independant of the consensus, I always do. It’s part of a little thing we like to call “scientific method”….
Talk about cherry picked.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
This is as good as Oreskes work. Doran makes a rather poor analysis of the chief concerns with Oreskes work, for not capturing the full diversity of scientic opinion.
Her main problems where; 1) her initial search parameters. She used terminology used by AGWers. (cherry picking). So she missed things like papers studing solar cycles, oceanic osscillations, etc. 2) Her use of the scientific method of “by implication”. And she doesn’t even bother to tell us what it takes to become by implication.
Then Doran to get his 90 some odd percent, narrows it down to people publishing in the area he wants. In short those on the AGWing gravy train. (Having worked in an arena where there was lots of gov. money. The experts came out of the woodwork when there was a big government grant.) The numbers were far smaller in Economic Geology and meterology.
Again we have another worthless work to prove that there is a consensus.
Unfortunately science, (last time I looked.) isn’t about consensus. It’s about who has the right answer.
Free market fanatics (R. Tanner) – that sounds like a chemist (analytical, logical, objective, scientific, reasoned).
I suggest any emotion be directed toward the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. If these organizations were doing their jobs, there would be no Heartland sponsoring meetings of scientists.
If it is true that Al Gore received a standing ovation at an AAAS meeting, the scientific community is in serious trouble, and Heartland has nothing to do with it.
Walter
Another piece of Doran. His first question was, “When compared with pre-1800s
levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” (I’m a bit suprise his number were that low.)
The next bit of news from Doran will probably be that scientist think it’s warmer than it was during the Plistocene.
Roger Sowell (17:28:12)
Thanks for the Hydrocarbon Processing link. I have designed instruments for hydrocarbon processing plants that include an auto-tune function based on some of the original control papers in that field. Greatly enjoyed reading that.
As is typical of WUWT, there was a link to all of the data, in this case all of the letters in that issue. Some supported the editor and the editorial. Most of those used the same ad hom attacks and appeals to authority as the original editorial. A few seemed to be attacking the members that complained about the editorial. I wonder how they knew about the complaints.
The world owes Anthony Watts, Steve Mcintyre, Roger Pielke, and a number of other brave men and women of science a huge debt of gratitude for providing not only forums to debunk the AGW non-sense, but giving real scientists the morale boost to speak out like the Chemical Society membership has done.
Dave E., exactly.
As Dr. Latour (and many others in the control field) have said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t control it.” Stated another way, if the measurements are junk, then it is futile to attempt to control it – no matter what “it” is.
As an aside, there are several (perhaps many) areas in process control where direct measurements are either very difficult or impossible. Some clever control and process engineers have devised ways to infer the desired parameter. These are usually successfully applied in the control algorithm, but frequently must have the inferential calculation updated.
This is why, to a control engineer, it sounds plausible initially that global temperature, which cannot be measured, can be inferred by proxies. WUWT readers will know what those are, no need for me to provide an exhaustive list here.
But as Dr. Latour said, it is all junk when the inferred results do not comply with control fundamentals: CO2 continues to rise, while the global temperature measurement (however badly determined) sometimes rises, sometimes decreases, and sometimes remains stable for decades.
Imagine trying to drive a car and maintain a desired speed, when pressing the gas pedal sometimes slows the car, sometimes speeds it up, and sometimes simply maintains the current speed for hour after hour. It cannot be done. That is what Dr. Latour is saying. So do I.
M. Simon, you are welcome. I also did some work in process control in refineries and petrochemical plants.
You might like to read my blog entry on Dr. Latour’s letters to the editor:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
(not Eric B, but I think the same way}
danbo (05:10:05) :
“”Talk about cherry picked.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Then Doran to get his 90 some odd percent, narrows it down to people publishing in the area he wants. In short those on the AGWing gravy train. (Having worked in an arena where there was lots of gov. money. The experts came out of the woodwork when there was a big government grant.) The numbers were far smaller in Economic Geology and meterology.””
Sorry but you are not making sense here. People who publish in a specialty are going to know more about the details, and can evaluate the issues much better than those who do not have detailed knowledge. In medicine, surgeons clearly are on a gravy train. If your GP tells you surgery is needed, he is not going to do it. He will send you to a surgeon. It will be expensive. Of course, y
ou would want to see statistics on the efficacy of the surgery being recommended. That is what peer reviewed publication is all about. It is not perfect, but better than looking at blog posts by non climate scientists.
To assume that 97% of the climate scientists who publish, are lying about their opinion in a confidential survey, in order to keep their jobs is a silly unsupported hypothesis. There is no evidence for it. It is similar to claiming that the Bush adminstration planned 911 because they benefited from it politically.
People go into scientific research out of curiosity, a desire to understand natural phenomena. People who are interested in money go into finance. There is no evidence that climate scientists earn more than others and that is why they enter the field. Just like biology, the field of climatology is an area of great interest to mankind. The idea that mandkind is influencing the climate is an idea that has a long history, since 1896, when Arrhenius first proposed it , and is a legitimate reason to do research on the mechanism of climate, however it comes out. If scientists choose climate science because this idea is intriguing, there is nothing corrupt about that.
“Again we have another worthless work to prove that there is a consensus.
Unfortunately science, (last time I looked.) isn’t about consensus. It’s about who has the right answer”
If you are a nonscientist, science to you, should be what scientists say it is.
That is what should go in scientific texts. If you deviate from that, you are in danger of being duped by quacks, or people with an economic interest in making up their own version of science. There is no reason to believe that nonscientists are more correct or pure in thought than the scientists who work in the field.
“If you are a nonscientist, science to you, should be what scientists say it is.”
A scientist is anyone capable of rational thinking, so if a scientist tells you a load then tell him, he isn’t a priest.
This attitude is alarming.
eric (10:09:51) :”If you are a nonscientist, science to you, should be what scientists say it is. ”
This would be true if everyone had an IQ of 80, but that isn’t the case. There are plenty of intelligent people with math, physics, and other scientific/technical backgrounds who have the time to learn about something that isn’t in their field. This is what is happening with people like Ryan O, McIntyre, etc. But there are also active, qualified, climatologists that don’t believe CO2 is a threat to our well being. If you are intelligent, you can study the issues and draw your own conclusions. That is what many of us here do. Your appeal to authority is hollow.
eric the not-B,
It is you who are not making sense. Or more probably, you are naïve.
The Wegman Report to Congress shows clearly how the climate peer review system has been gamed by a smallish clique of rent-seeking gatekeepers, who play favorites regarding who is published and who is denied. The climate peer review system has been corrupted by people who use their positions to support each other in their grant applications.
Some of them lie to keep their jobs. Wouldn’t you? Agreeing with your boss is prudent, even if you privately disagree.
Most who are published are hand-waved through the process; they are given a free pass if they’re considered one of the “good guys.” But if they are a true skeptic, they have a much harder time getting past the self-appointed gatekeepers.
There is so much evidence of this that you must be deliberately ignoring it. A typical example is this account by Bishop Hill, which shows the lengths to which dishonest people will go to keep the tax money flowing into their pockets, and away from anyone who questions AGW: click. Read it, then get back to us about “who has the right answer.”
Let me add, that I am one of those who sent him an email that blasted his editorial and challenged him to a debate. I got a rather snotty response in which he said it would not be worth it (debate) as I “already have all the answers.”
Update: Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of ‘censoring of articles and letters’ that reject man-made global warming claims!
For those that have not seen this on ClimateDepot.com.
I have been a member of ACS since 1976 when I started my Ph.D. program at the University of California, Irvine where Sherry Rolland did the work on CFC’s. So I was exposed to atmospheric chemistry from an early age. I hope the Science prevails. Hype is not a constructive activity.
CodeTech,
Late to the party, so you may miss this, but while DDT has no impact on quail egs, DDE a variant of DDT appears to have a very real shell-thinning effect on Raptors and other sensitive species.
The thing is, a little DDE doesn’t do it. Clearly, we could and should be using careful dosing in serious infestionation and high risk situations.
More on this here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34742.html
Sorry Eric you’re right, I don’t call myself a scientist. But having been a member of the research society in graduate school. Having done research. (multi-variant complex systems.) Having written research policy in my professional caree. Having been a member of a state research task force.
Allow me a few indulgences. I would say the idea of what science is, is what “scientists say it is.” Or, what you say it is; is funny.
Science is about a proceedure, method and evidence, You and the AGWing have failed in those.
In grad school and in my professional career I saw a lot of bad science. Sorry I can’t do as you say, and listen blindly. You and AGWing have failed in procedure, method and evidence. And I’ve seen a lot of bad science masquarading as truth.
I’d get into the rest but it looks like others did it.
BTW My graduate training wasn’t in medicine. But I did work with a number of MD’s. Including med school professors. If I’m told I have cancer. I’ll look for someone whose judgment I trust. I’ve seen questionable MD’s. And MD’s with their own agendas, biases and blind spots.
L (23:33:41) :
“Amidst all the hoo-ha, has anyone noticed that nine of the ten warmest years of the 21st Century have occurred since 2000, and the tenth is happening as we write?
On the other hand, that’s equally true for the nine coolest. Go figure.”
Stastically speaking, of course.
BTW, did you notice that the average temperature of the nine coolest and the nine warmest years of the 21st century were exactly the same!?!? What are the odds of that? ;o)
Jimmy Haigh (19:02:32) :
John A (18:53:13) :
“I personally think we should leave statistics and statistical models to statisticians, but that’s just me.”
The thing is statistics is just playing around with numbers. And numbers can be made up…”
To right about numbers. But statistics are very useful, I used them to figure out which lab techs are falsifying data… Unfortunately falsifying data seems to have increase over the years. Mann and Hansen have not helped matters by making science a political football.
Can someone please explain to me how every media editor, institution executive and senior politician is singing the same tune on AGW? – a tune that is increasingly out of touch with the wider readership and population.
Is this a classic case of group hysteria?
Is there a global puppet master with his/her hand up everyone’s back?
Is there an international CIA or KGB with a gun at everyone’s head?
If there a giant slush-fund somewhere that I have been excluded from?
How has all this been achieved??
.
>>>If we were doing a list of magazines I can’t and won’t
>>>subscribe to any more I would add Discover and
>>>Skeptical Inquirer
And New Scientist.
>>>It all began when some green idiot described something
>>>he/she supposed in his/her empty skull to be bad, as
>>>being “bad because it is a chemical“.
We had a laugh a few years back in the UK, when one green organistion made a sincere complaint about food companies starting to use chemicals like sodium chloride in their products.
Shock horror, salt is a chemical.
.
>>>This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the
>>>warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
And an hour after the tide has turned, the sea-level with still be ‘the second highest recorded that day’ – but you can bet your bottom dollar it is all downhill from there.
Hadcrut – global temperatures already past the peak…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-.2/trend
.
“When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”
LOL this is surely the tipping point of the debate, My BBQ with my MP is going to shock him. All pol’s had better wake up before the down draft of public opinion suck them down and spit them out.
I have been in science. I’ve experienced the extreme pressure to play the game in order to keep the job or get the funding. I have witnessed the I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine gate keeping during proposal review before it gets passed on to the funding stage. I know the road of a new scientist who must earn their keep before they can disagree. It is a trial by fire and usually what gets burned to ashes is your notion of idealism regarding following the observation and experimentation to let it speak on its own terms. That illusion disappears by the second week on the job. It is the rare exception to find a lab that is without agenda.
With that background, do you know why the editor of the above rag was surprised by the back lash? One of the planks of the organization espouses the rhetoric of global warming and the call to arms against it. Yet there are still members who pay dues that do not believe in the alarmism that is in their own organization’s position statement. So why do they not vote with their dollars and remove themselves from membership? Let me count the ways. It is a bitter pill that is swallowed every day.
********************
ralph ellis (01:37:09) :
Can someone please explain to me how every media editor, institution executive and senior politician is singing the same tune on AGW? – a tune that is increasingly out of touch with the wider readership and population.
*************************
IMO, it started with the environmental movement. Saving the planet sounds like such a good idea!! Left wing idealists, many with ideological roots in the 60s and 70s, came to power as they got older. They then directed state and other resources towards environmental studies and other projects. Love Canal and other environmental problems pushed this along. Because of all this, money was made available to environmental researchers. They chase this money to this day.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/
There are also people who passionately believe in environmental issues like global warming. They don’t have a scientific or technical background and don’t really understand the science, but believe what people like Jim Hanson have to say. They create political support. There is no conspiracy – except maybe from people like Al Gore. I do believe he and his buddies do what they can to promote these ideas, but that does not amount to a “global” conspiracy.
************************
Ern Matthews (02:15:45) :
“When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”
LOL this is surely the tipping point of the debate, My BBQ with my MP is going to shock him. All pol’s had better wake up before the down draft of public opinion suck them down and spit them out.
*************************
Actually, I hope the pols die a political death on the hill of global warming. We need some new blood in government, all over the world!
Pamela Gray (06:15:15) :
That is a good question. Speaking personally, through the years, I have often thought of “making a statement” and resigning my membership, but there are good solid “nuts and bolts” types of benefits that the Society does provide. Things like life insurance and investment opportunities available under favorable terms to the membership, along with substantial discounts for members attending National Meetings. Also, if I’m not mistaken, membership is required by at least one co-author to present at a meeting. I really have no problem with those requirements, since it is supposed to be a “professional society”.
The problem comes, like with many large organizations, when a management “class” takes over. Like a successful, well-run private corporation founded by the surly crusty guy who puts his heart and sole into the business and then turns the reins over to the Harvard MBA’s who promptly lose sight of the original mission, professional organizations have a similar problem with being taken over by a bureaucratic class who see them as a good opportunity for a “career” (read <i really, really, really good paycheck.
If they can earn a lot more money within this bureaucracy than anywhere else <i and stand on their soap box too, hey, what’s not to like?
The people that don’t like it tend to have real jobs and don’t have the time and vested interest to fight the system like those entrenched in this good-life, so the bureaucratic class gets to continue with their sweet existence as long as they’re not too disconnected from reality.
In my opinion, this sad episode, along with hard economic times will soon cause some real changes at the ACS.
http://reedgrouplab.ucr.edu/documents/Executive%20Compensation%20and%20Transparency.htm
http://www.chemistry-blog.com/tag/madeline-jacobs/
dang html commands. You’ll have to guess where those itallics were meant to be.
I sincerely hope members of the ACS don’t resign – I hope they stay and get Baum to resign.
Jim, the left/right divide is a mirage. See through it. It makes good people insult other good people, and, hence, we are much easier to manage. Saving the planet from real pollution (burning rivers, remember???) is certainly not a bad idea no matter from whence it came. The vast majority of AGWers are being managed by being fed misinformation. This is certainly not the only area that this type of pied piperism happens. The politicians and media (All — left, right and center) has perfected the technique and as long as you look to it for general information you will be misled.
has = have
it = them
RE:
Eric B (16:38:59) “……First off, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. ……”
Theory and hypothesis are roughly synonymous, Eric.
RE:
eric (10:09:51) :
“If you are a nonscientist, science to you, should be what scientists say it is.”
Ooooooohhhhhhhhhhh. I don’t think so, kiddo. Not when it’s my money; not when it’s my future or the future of my country or of my kids.
Furthermore, who are you to say who is or is not a scientist with valuable knowledge in any given field. As you and the other Eric have so kindly pointed out, fields overlap, knowledge, in general, overlaps.
An online acquainence of mine claims to be friends with an associate editor for ACS and claims that the “lunkheads” are the minoroty and the vast, vast majority of ACS members are in agreement with Baum.
I have asked for the name and title of this individual so I can verify that he is indeed an Associate Editor for ACS, and not suprisingly, was told he wished to remain anonymous.
Right…
So until I see otherwise, I will assume that those that care ehough are writing in, and I see a whole bunch writing in against Baum.
**********************
page48 (23:25:59) :
RE:
Eric B (16:38:59) “……First off, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. ……”
Theory and hypothesis are roughly synonymous, Eric.
***********************
My understanding from school is …
1. Observation – a phenomenon is observed and there is no current understanding of it.
2. Hypothesis – a conjecture is made to explain the observation.
3. Experiment – an experiment or experiments are devised to test the hypothesis.
4. If enough experiments confirm the hypothesis, it becomes a theory.
5. If the theory is further confirmed and determined to be fundamental, it becomes a law, like the “law of gravity.”
Eric-the-not-B, “If you are a nonscientist, science to you, should be what scientists say it is.”
The issue with the whole AGW scam is that scientists DON’T say what you claim they say. Scientists speak with many different and often conflicting voices. There is, of course, the popular myth, which claims that there is such a coherent voice, but some careful reflection will show this not to be the case.
We are often told by Gore and others that 2,500 scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming that will likely be catastrophic. Yet when we study the AR4 summary for policy makers, these dire predictions are written by a handfull of lead authors. Out of the whole report itself, it is only chapter 9 that deals with GHG forcings. All the rest deals with other topics such as land use and management (or lack of management).
You may be unaware, but the scientists who carried out the original research did not write chapter 9 (or any other chapter). The closest analogy I can give is to compare it with an undergraduate essay. The undergraduate researches the available papers, choses the bits that suit his thesis, and writes his essay, copiously sprinkled with references of course. And even though 100 or so scientists may be referenced (a far cry from the ridiculous 2,500 myth) they are not speaking with their own words, and they are not saying that CO2 is causing the earth to catastrophically warm. Moreover, there is as yet nothing in chapter 9 which proves most of the 20th century warming is caused by CO2. If you don’t believe me, go and read it.
Then there is the question of what is a scientist in the first place. Some AGWers use the argument that a skeptic isn’t a scientist or climate scientist and should be ignored. This belief is born of ignorance. Steve McIntyre has been criticized in this way for being, by training, an econometrician. Yet most people throwing these accusations have no idea of what econometrics is. In actual fact it involves a higher understanding of statistical techniques than most scientists possess. Imagine trying to calculate the elasticity of demand for a product from a sea of constantly shifting data, to separate income effects from substitution effects that act in opposite directions. The complexity is mind blowing. That is why when McIntyre and McItrick said Mann’s hockey stick study was wrong, they were proved correct. That is why if McIntyre says a study is flawed, then his view carries weight.
In 2007, after reading the AR4 summary for policy makers, I WAS alarmed, and I believed it all at the time. But I decided to find out more. I was guided through the ether. First Roger Pielke’s climate science and climate audit, then WUWT. I have read dozens of research papers. I’m not a scientist but I can read an abstract and a conclusion. Doing that often enough has led me to the position I’m now at. Scientists are not agreed on climate catastrophism. Not by a long way.
In January, the University of Illinois conducted a global warming survey of 3146 respondants from a listing in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments. At first sight, this would appear to represent a good sounding of informed scientific opinion. Widely reported and quoted, it is generally taken to reinforce the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ on AGW. viz from CNN
‘Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.’
The latter two groups were waved aside as essentially irrelevant, strangely.
What is not made obvious is that the 97% of climatologists was only 79 people, but the most intriguing aspect of the survey is curiously never discussed. the clue is in the line ”Two questions were key’. For there were a total of nine questions, the reported two being introductory. The other seven questions and their responses, apparently of no consequence, totally unreported. Now, in a climate change survey of earth scientists, what could these questions of no consequence possibly have related to, perhaps, maybe, CO2 warming and its likely magnitude and severity? Clearly not worth revealing, anyway.
Britannic, In school I was involved in some “polling” to determine opinions. It gave me a few bucks. And meshed in with research classes.
I said before, I consider the paper cherry picked and misleading for a number of reasons. The question of it being warmer than 1800 is one.
However one of the problems with research involving asking people opinions. There is a tendency of respondents to try to give the pollster the answer he wants. To be nice.
Sometimes a good researcher will bury the question he really wants to know about in a whole bunch of irrelevant questions. And you don’t ask the important one first. Respondents tend to be more honest in their responses when you ask a whole lot of questions. They stop reading your mind or trying to. And get more honest.
But without seeing the questions, who knows.
If they’re honerable researchers they’ll give all the questions. And a whole lot more. If I were setting us such a design, I’d likely be asking 9 or 10 questions at a minimum.
But that’s just my unscientific opinion.
danbo (18:12:51) :
Very true. But in this case, the respondents were Earth scientists, and the survey on global warming. It is a strange Earth scientist who would not have formed in depth opinions given the saturation exposure we have all been inflicted with in recent times. I should know- I am one- but the survey was primarily US and I wasn’t asked. You could not conceal key questions even if they were in nuanced Gaelic written backwards. They knew precisely what they were being asked and why. The reported first question is a no brainer, the second an obfuscatory catch all. Including all human influences- historic land clearance and deforestation, major urban developments, large artificial lakes and reservoirs, wetland reclamations, etc. as well as fossil fuel emissions. The survey MUST have probed deeper.
In my opinion the way this survey was reported and publicised potentially compromises the integrity of that university. If I were its Dean, at the very least I would have the full results tabulated and published somewhere, and maybe they have, suitably obscurely?
Britannic True.
“The survey MUST have probed deeper. ” I’m not sure if that’s true. The no brainer first question, (Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?) probably tells you what was going on. We can manipulate an impression by asking the right questions. Like comparing tempertures to a base, drawn from a known cool period.
Which brings me to my complaint’s about Oreskes work. Her original search parameters biased her sample. And her use of by implication means you can read anything you want into the results. Is this any different?
The manipulation of the responses alone tell us they were likely looking for the answers they wanted. Rather than just following a desire for knowledge.
Sam Vilain
Too Easy: You ask for 3 so Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Steve Idso, Landsea, Christy, Balling. My big handicap is that I am so lousy with remembering names, yet I can come up with half a dozen off the top of my head who are clearly experts and who don’t buy the pap that catastrophic global warming due to CO2 is coming. In fact I have a lot of trouble anymore finding serious scientists who do believe it.
If it is science than a scientifically trained reader who reads the published papers should be able to judge. Being a researcher directly in the field should not be necessary unless the published authors are grossly incompetent. Your premise is dead wrong in multiple ways.
A theory that fails to explain observations or fails to predict the results of observations is not a theory anymore.
Pamela Grey states: “There is no conspiracy – except maybe from people like Al Gore. I do believe he and his buddies do what they can to promote these ideas, but that does not amount to a “global” conspiracy.”
Unfortunately there IS a global conspiracy.
I was at ground zero of one of the moves 25 years ago. A NH “school teacher” started a nationwide blitz against Polystyrene. It killed the project my boss was head engineer on. Sweetheart Plastics, McDonald’s burgers and a Polystyrene company were about to break ground on a new plant to recycle post consumer clamshells, cups and cutlery. The project was designed to employ the handicap. No way a lone school teach went against powerful corporations and won, not without help. John Munsell’s e-coli experience shows this.
A friend, John Munsell told me a reporter from a big NY paper spent days with him getting an e-coli story about the events that lead to a woman’s death, a USDA coverup and a Congressional investigation. The owner of the paper killed the story.
In fighting the WTO sponsored Animal ID system I have watch data sources disappear or be replaced with out a date change so the USDA can label farmers “disinformation agents” The history of what is happening to your food supply is here: http://www.google.com/search?q=yupfarming+combs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
Check out the control of the money supply by the Federal Reserve or similar systems in other countries, Checkout the changes to the laws about using the American military against civilians (Posse Comitatus), checkout the homegrown terrorist list that includes bumper stickers for third party candidates, checkout the agreement (2/14/008) that allows Canadian Military forces into the USA to be used against American citizens.
Maurice Strong:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong
He put his beliefs into action with his ties to the UN. In 1970 he began the first in a series of high-level incarnations that included organizing the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the environment, founding and becoming the first head of the U.N.Environment Program, and chairing the 1992 Rio summit on the environment.
And his ties to the Rockefellers. He was a director of the Rockefeller foundation.
Rockefeller has stated:
“The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
2002 Rockefeller autobiography “Memoirs” on page 405: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
“Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”
– Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
Control of Money, Food, Military and now Energy through a world “Cap and Trade scheme”
No conspiracy here, move along please or we will have to put you in a Hallibuton built detainment center. We are recruiting prison guards into the National Guard as we speak.
Posse Comitatus http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
Military to be used in flu epidemic: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14543
Possible Mandatory vaccination with untested vaccine, (Congress already passed a law so the government and the vaccine manufacturer can not be sued if it harms or kills you.) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf
This is scary when all died in one trial: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2235676/Homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-Poland.html
And Baxer made a mistake:http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/live-avian-flu-virus-placed-in-baxter-vaccine-materials-sent-to-18-countries/
New detainment facilities : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
National Guard Corrections Officer – Internment/Resettlement Specialist http://jobview.monster.com/getjob.aspx?JobID=82289279&brd=1&q=internment&cy=us&lid=316&re=130&AVSDM=2009-07-16+09%3a18%3a00&pg=1&seq=1&fseo=1&isjs=1&re=1000
Tracking the bills headed for Congress the last couple of years is scaring the bejees out of me.
David L. Hagen (20:11:16) :
Gary Lund
Please post here the letter you sent to ACS.
Sorry for the late response. Here it is:
Dear Editor,
In a recent editorial in the June 22, 2009 issue of C&EN entitled “Climate-Change News”, Rudy Baum opines that “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established” and that the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change has become increasingly difficult to challenge…..”
I find these statements interesting in view of my own experience investigating this admittedly emotionally charged subject inasmuch as I have arrived at precisely the opposite conclusion. Having recently been prompted to explore the whole anthropogenic global warming/climate change controversy by increasingly frequent claims of scientific consensus, I have personally been unable to find a satisfactory scientific study supporting a anthropogenic CO2 (or related “green house gas” emission) causal link to global temperature changes. Instead, the literature seems to be well populated with studies which implicitly assume an anthropogenic cause for climate change and proceed to address whatever effect being reported upon might result. The reliance of the anthropogenic climate change theory on global circulation models which appear to be poorly validated is hardly incontrovertible proof. One thing that does seem to have resulted from the recent focus on climate change is an apparent increasingly sophisticated understanding of the various natural forces effecting global temperature cycles.
Rather than sneering at opinions at odds with the so-called consensus and resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks, one would do well to retain an open mind towards such a politically important subject. The stakes have been raised to high levels and the consequences have the potential to be profound to future scientific funding and economic growth.
Thank you,
danbo (06:15:07)
Well, at least we can be sure that there are at least 3146 enlightened souls, who, if they have good memory recall, know more than both of us!
But clearly we both smell the same rat.
John M (08:08:42),
Those compensation numbers are astonishing!
And the 2002 compensation was small compared to subsequent years: click
Do these people have no shame?? ACS members should be pounding the table, and insisting that their annual dues should go toward supporting and improving the organization, instead of lining the pockets of ACS officers at the expense of working engineers.
From icecap.us, Scientists are talking to German Chancellor Merkel. From
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims
60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo Religion’
Marc Morano, Climate Depot
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”
This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.
The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.
“”” commonsense (13:58:21) :
Yes, the IPCC and nearly all the other climate models have been proven wrong:
THE WARMING AND MELTING ARE FAR WORSE THAN THOSE MODELS PREDICT.
The models were not alarmist: quite the opposite. “””
So what ? if the models and the real observational data don’t agree, then at least the models are wrong; so they should be discarded; that is ALL of them that don’t agree with the observed data; note the use of the word “observed” to distinguish it from the “manipulated” or “corrected” data.
And yes; when do you expect that they will have collected a sufficient set of sampled data to convince anybody that it actually can reconstruct correctly the full continuous funtion that is being sampled.
Surely one should at least reach that sufficiency point before asserting the at the results are “much worse” than the models predict.
“”” Britannic no-see-um (17:05:27) :
In January, the University of Illinois conducted a global warming survey of 3146 respondants from a listing in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments. At first sight, this would appear to represent a good sounding of informed scientific opinion. Widely reported and quoted, it is generally taken to reinforce the so-called ’scientific consensus’ on AGW. viz from CNN “””
So just where can we find the complete list of these 3146 “respondents”, along with their Scientific Credentials (or a short bio) and any abstract of their public statements in support of man made global warming.
We could then compare that information with the corresponding information on the 700 or so “scientists” who are listed in the US Senate Minority Report of the Senate EPW committee chaired by Senator Ma’am Boxer of California.
It is one thing for a “respondent” to comment anonymously to a preconceived canned questionaire; but quite another to openly under his own name and scientific credentials, to render his scientific opinion of the issue in his own words.
I can state categorically that I am not one of the 3146 “respondents” to the U of Illinois “survey”; but I am listed in that other 700 (once 400) compendium.
Indeed, but they are far from comparable. These were just random scientists from a range of geoscience departments, research departments and institutes picked out purely because of the convenience that the AGI directory obligingly listed their contact emails and affiliation. Many more were apparently sent the unsolicited mailshot survey, these 3146 were the minority who actually responded. It is therefore merely an extraction of random opinions from a passive, but scientifically literate pool. My suspicions lie firmly with the agenda surrounding the reporting of the results.
The blogosphere is picking up on Baum’s false AGW propaganda: click