Wandering the climate desert in exile

My friend in Australia, Joanne Nova, has come up with an interesting essay on why it is so hard for many professional scientists to come out against climate consensus. In fact you might say in this case study it is un-bearable.

Image

For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here

The way some people get treated for expressing a different viewpoint rather reminds me of what Sethi says to Moses upon announcement of exile in the movie The Ten Commandments:

Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk of Egypt. Let the name of Moses be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of man, for all time.

Nova writes: The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field. What follows is an example of a scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a meeting, but then-without discussing the evidence-applauds the IPCC and recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy?

If a leading researcher can’t speak his mind without punishment by exile, what chance would any up-and-coming researcher have? As Mitchell Taylor points out “It’s a good way to maintain consensus”.

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “Wandering the climate desert in exile

  1. A known, but sad fact.
    Even so, it’s good that someone with courage and honesty can lay out the facts for the public to see.
    There should be MORE of these pieces put forward.

  2. That is what leaves the field wide open for experienced, enthusiastic and intelligent amateurs like me (I hope) and many other contributors to this site.
    Anyway, the definition of an amateur is very flexible.
    James Hansen was trained as an astrophysicist so in relation to climate he is no more a ‘professional’ than I am.
    Likewise the multitude of others experienced in diverse disciplines who suddenly find themselves able to pronounce on climate issues as if they had some real expertise.
    Climatology is currently no more authoritative than economics, sociology or, (horrors), water divining.
    So there !!!

  3. I wrote the following e-mail to the head of the scientific body Nova quotes:
    Dear Dr. Derocher,
    I am an author at work on my second book on climate. I have read conflicting accounts of polar bear population changes in the last 50 years.
    By and large, my understanding is the following:
    Polar bear populations crashed, principally due to over-hunting, in the 1960s and early 1970s, by the end of which the global population had dwindled to something on the order of 5,000 bears.
    Since that time strenuous efforts to reduce hunting and poaching have led to a five-fold increase in bear numbers.
    If it is easy to set me straight about any of this, please do so!
    Sincerely yours,
    Harold Ambler
    ———————————————–
    If/when the good doctor replies, I will make his thoughts known.

  4. A cousin of mine knows one of the original 12 expert scientists that worked on the first IPCC report. My cousin argued with him for years that global warming was not caused by humans, and finally he came round and agreed. When this IPCC scientist then tried to convince others in his organisation, they forced him to retire early. Nothing has changed it seems.

  5. I will be attending a science conference in October at which will be a workshop on marine mammals and a melting Arctic. A decade ago I raised the notion that the global warming scare was exaggerated when placed in the context of history and was ridiculed. The issue is that during the Medieval Warm Period, the Arctic was probably near ice free for much of the summers. Where did the pagophilic mammals go? The worst case scenarios for warming and melting over the next 30-100 years still leaves the Arctic cooler than was reached at the climatic optimum of the MWP. The poster I’m presenting will graphically show the current era sea ice maximum, current era sea ice minimum, decadal sea ice maximum, and decadal sea ice minimum to show that it’s just not all that hot in the Arctic these days. I’m bracing for a tough time.

  6. This kind of censorship is not unique to the climate change topic. Rather, examples of it can be found in virtually every discipline and area of life. I state this not to suggest that the problem is not really so bad since “everybody else is doing it”. Rather, it illustrates the extreme seriousness of the problem: censorship and exile are culture-wide. We must fight this bigotry everywhere.

  7. This is a deplorable situation.
    But I am seeing more papers written where the basic data provided and the analysis written in the bulk of the paper is presenting a non-AGW point of view (but the abstract and the media spin is still written in a pro-AGW stance).
    I’m assuming it is scientists trying to remain objective and maintain their reputations in the long-term while still getting invited to all the great global warming parties in the short-term. It seems to work right now in the current environment. Skip the abstracts, go to the paper and the data.

  8. “Farenheit 451” !, or worse: The “Holy”inquisition. However the late I.Velikovsky suffered the same when trying to publish “Ages in upheaval” or “Worlds in colission”.

  9. I read Joanna Nova’s article and it confirmed my belief that eventually this fight is not going to be won by arguing the science. In one of Christopher Booker’s recent Telegraph pieces a commenter, asked to provide evidence that man’s contribution to global warming was “not negligible”, replied:
    “1. Mankind’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 has caused its concentration to rise by 38% since 1750.
    2. Doubling of CO2 concentration causes (after several decades) a rise in global average temperatures of about 3C. ”
    This was in spite of a series of postings which had effectively already repudiated both those arguments. Keep repeating the same old rubbish and with any luck the opposition will get fed up with beating its collective head on a brick wall and go off and do something more interesting (like watching paint dry, perhaps).
    Like Stephen Wilde I have no qualification in climatology and in that I seem to be in the same boat as most of those who consider themselves qualified to pronounce on the subject including, it would appear, those who consider themselves expert on the subject of polar bears.
    Meanwhile one of those who has actually gone out and got his hands dirty in the cause of polar bear research is sidelined and one is forced to ask:
    What is the Polar Bear Specialist Group and what does it do?
    Why does it have to have an angle on climate change?
    Why (and this is the killer) is Dr Derocher so sold on the climate change scam that he cannot bring himself to say, “hey! if Mitch thinks it’s a bummer then maybe I’d better think again.”? Is that not what scientists do, or am I missing something?

  10. Sure. Remember Stanley B. Goldenberg.
    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
    How many scientists subscribe to anthropogenic global warming point of view? We all know that “the best” climate scientists have this point of view; however, I am curious to know what exactly makes these climate scientists so brilliant? What did they discover? What is their contribution to the scientific understanding of the world we live in?
    I would rather say that there is the there is only a fringe of scientists who buy into anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. We all know the viewpoint of Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaever – but most great minds are silent exactly for the reasons explained by Joanna Nova.
    Anthropogenic global warming consensus is surely an illusion.

  11. This is really nothing new, though.
    Look at the fate of celebrities who don’t stand with PETA. Or Scientology.

  12. Hang on. A polar bear expert retires. No shock there, people retire all the time, like taxes and death, it’s a good deal more than likely to happen eventually…
    When I retire do I think I’ll carry on just as I did before I retired? No. Why? Because I’ll have retired…
    But, somehow, this chap (this polar bear expert) retiring becomes an example of some conspiracy to silence AGW sceptics??? Nope, sorry, that makes not an iota of sense.
    Besides, this is all old news from months back, old news dusted off, re spun and handed down to a clearly willing audience in a new and more ‘I don’t believe it!’ form. Is it all there is?

  13. Stephen Wilde (13:56:31) :
    One more crack about sociology and I’m going to start issuing challenges to meet me on the cliffs at Weehawken. You, too, can be featured on a piece of paper that purports to have value… and keep in mind that it was the loser of that encounter who is so featured.
    I am a skeptic precisely because as a sociologist I recognize the “science is settled” argument for precisely what is, an attempt to deviantize an otherwise defensible argument. A student of sociology may not be qualified to pronounce on the validity of predictions on CO2 doubling, but he damn well knows what the effects of mixing science and politics are likely to be. THAT is our area of expertise. If there are alarmist morons in Sociology, at least I can point to other disciplines that really should know better.

  14. It takes guts to do what is right sometimes. Look how many times now famous artists, inventors, and scientists were not appreciated during their lifetimes.
    The truth has its own power, but often takes time to take effect. Mother nature is most likely going to weigh in on this, and weigh in mightily, if Archibald and others are right. Don’t dismay, get active.

  15. So,what Derocher is saying is,Man-made climate change is the dominant religion, IT SUITS OUR AGENDA ;anybody intending to rock the boat must disembark.
    Verily,I have the holy scriptures,the one true word that is the Summary For Policymakers and ye are the infidel.

  16. I can easily recall the names and deeds of great scientists of the past, but try as I will, not one of the names of their ‘peers’ seems to come to mind!

  17. “retirement” is it?
    Peter Hearnden please read this letter sent to Mitchell Taylor:
    Hi Mitch,
    The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.
    I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.
    I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation. Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition. Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.
    I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.
    Best regards,
    Andy (Derocher)

  18. Bigotry is alive and well on college campuses, school districts, research institutions newsrooms, and film studios/production companies. If you are of a certain political persuasion or spiritual background, you don’t stand much of a chance of getting a job or being taken seriously. And, let’s face it, everybody knows who’s who; and if they don’t, they assume the worst.
    That’s bigotry.

  19. Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition is still alive and well. Religious intolerance hasn’t gone anywhere. It has just shifted religions. Anybody who dares to questions the clergy and anyone who dares to insult God, which in this case is Gaia or Mother Earth, is persecuted until he or she comes around.
    At what point do the great masses of people say “Science should not behave like religion?” These scientists fight hard to get traditional religion out of schools, but at the same time push their religion by force. The one thing I’ve learned in 31 years is that people are idiots. Every person is an idiot, myself included. The trick is to be less of an idiot than the crowd.

  20. Peter Hearnden (15:03:35) :
    Another precinct heard from. I’ve got students proclaiming in my classes that old guys like me don’t understand the world ’cause it has changed and it is up to the young people, who have a stake in the future, to take charge. Old guys like me have it made and don’t care any more and are afraid of change.
    BS. Old guys like me have seen this scenario before… the coming ice age of the late 60’s, the Malthusian disaster predicted by Paul Ehrlich… our experience is relevant… and we don’t give up our interests because we are “retired”… retired people die.

  21. F Rasmin (15:18:23) :
    I can easily recall the names and deeds of great scientists of the past, but try as I will, not one of the names of their ‘peers’ seems to come to mind!
    Brilliant!

  22. Things have not changed. If it was Sethi back in the time of Moses, today in Climate change the major AGW proponent is using the same technique– those whose names could not be mentioned. History will repeat itself no doubt. It was repeated at the time of Galileo. It will be repeated again in the future when the truth finally comes out. Take heart. Continue the fight for the truth.
    Politics is a fleeting thing. Scaring the public is a common strategy of dictators. It has been done since the dawn of history, is done today and it will be done tomorrow. As the scaring strategy wears out, the dictators are pushed to the wall and it is time for dictators to adopt the silencing, shaming, and ultimately the extreme moves grand inquisition, the book burning, etc. Just like the stock market, the AGW stock is reaching its peak but at the same time the signs of desperation, the sign that the public are moving on to more pressing issues are there. Take heart continue the fight for the truth–it will come out sooner or later.
    Talking of polar bear, the Yellowstone has the classic history of the collapse of wildlife population from over protection. Remember the hunting of wolves and over protection of the deer population. Ultimately the deer population collapsed not from the wolves and hunting but from starvation. If the present trend continues there is a big possibility the polar bear population will collapse from mass starvation caused by over population. Blame the death on global warming.

  23. As others have noted AGW is a socio-political phenomena. But we shouldn’t forget that the AGW phenomena was engineered by the United Nations.
    While many people on both the right and left think their national politicians are venal and corrupt, there are large numbers especially on the left who think that everything that comes out of the UN must be good and right. Despite it being run by unelected relatives of third world leaders of dubious legitimacy and staffed by various shades of political activists, with no democratic oversight at all.
    A corrupt and incompetent UN allowed activists who saw an opportunity for large scale wealth transfers and global economic engineering to hijack the IPCC, and the rest, as they say, is history.

  24. Bravo Joanna Nova for a very comprehensive essay but “Exile for the Non-Believers” smacks of defeatism. What is required from the gallant minority that frequent this forum is a more positive attitude with more positive articles and slogans such as Steve Jobs’ Think Different that stole a march on Microsoft and took Apple and the ipod to number one in the world in digital music converting millions to believe in its product.
    If science is on your side all you need is a sales department to demonstrate it.
    http://iphonepartyzone.com/FilesUploaded/SimpleImageGalleryFiles/38/img_569.jpg

  25. The AGW /CC issue really does separate the wheat from the chaff, and the men from the boys. It takes great courage, principle, conviction, and chutzpah to speak the truth, no matter the consequences.
    Those who are simply riding along on the coattails of AGW ideology, simply because it is safe, convenient, and lucrative to do so will eventually pay the price, in one way or another.

  26. This is why many in government employ (myself included) use pseudonyms. Lysenkoists in lab coats control the consensus in this way.

  27. And I’d add that I detect pushback by politicians and others who see how dangerous and corrosive of democracy allowing the United Nations to impose mandates on democratic governments is.
    And therein lies the solution. Make politicians represent the people who elected them and vote them out if the don’t.
    While exposing and debunking the false and misleading claims made in the name of climate science is fun, it’s a sideshow to resisting AGW in the political arena.

  28. Peter Hearnden – A polar bear expert wants to go to a meeting. He’s been there at every meeting since 1981. He is not given an invitation. No mention of any sort of retirement reason is given at the time. That’s only brought up post hoc. The reason given at the time was his climate views. Who are you to know better?
    I think you’ve misunderstood the blog format. Blog posts are designed for relatively small subjects, not an opus such as an examination of all the scientists who have felt career pain due to their global warming positions.

  29. You can contact Dr Andy Derocher at
    derocher [ at ] ualberta.ca
    I feel sure that Dr Derocher has a more reasonable explanation for this story. Surely this kind of bullying must be completely untrue. I thought the days of bullying & censorship of scientists (like they did to Galileo) were over?

  30. The end result of “sucking your own exhaust” is asphyxiation. That is what such organizations are headed toward. It is the fresh air of contrary opinion that feeds the flame of learning…
    I’m happy to stand in the fresh air and let those driven by political goals suffer what the fates may bring. 😎

  31. @Michael T (15:48:55)
    Peter Hearden wrote: what’s so special of a retiring polar bear expert?
    The facts that he did not retire but was forbidden to speak.

  32. Wait! Scientists can be bought or intimidated? Then they shouldn’t be worshiped as gods?
    Then what can I believe in?

  33. “As others have noted AGW is a socio-political phenomena. But we shouldn’t forget that the AGW phenomena was engineered by the United Nations.” Philip_B
    Wait! Are you the Philip that tried to get me banned for my economic “insights”?
    And I just though you were a narrowly focused scientist.
    Now you seem more like a hyprocrite as you sound off with your pseudo-science sociology. Perhaps jealous too?

  34. Change will come only when the underlining evidence of the AWG can be shown to the masses in a simple and humorous way as laughable falsehoods. Making it fodder for late-night talk shows, then and only then has the tipping point has been reached. There is noway in hell you can attack the elites without a massive snicker from the public. 🙂

  35. Back2Bat (16:21:35) :
    Wait! Scientists can be bought or intimidated? Then they shouldn’t be worshiped as gods?
    “Then what can I believe in?”
    Back2back,
    You can’t.
    The only thing you can do is to ask questions and be skeptical, especially in regard to your Government.
    Skeptic minds provide the safeguard for any society.
    They are the “canaries in the coal mine” so to say.
    If skeptics encounter massive opposition by a consensus (any consensus for that matter) and people get fired or attacked because they have opposing views, we know something is seriously wrong.
    Therefore Skeptics (those who question) are the safeguards of freedom.
    If they are silenced, freedom is silenced.

  36. It’s a sad day indeed to come to a place in the history of scientific endeavour, in which all that one needs in order to prove that the Moon is made of Green Cheese….. is 51 percent of opinion.
    Not one fact more is necessary.
    That was a very sad report from Joanne. I think it is time we stopped hoping for good science, and started demanding it….. It is, after all, our money they are mostly using.

  37. Frustrating that we have this being the situation. It also explains why a lot of academics and government researchers wait till they retire before “rocking the boat”; they no longer have to chant the mantra of AGW (or silently let others do so) for fear of maintaining the income they need to maintain a home and family. The concept of extortion comes immediately to mind. This is also probably a reason we no longer hear many voices of reason who USED TO speak out. It appears that many of what used to be our stalwart academic institutions have determined their quest is more for government and grants and other funding, and increasingly LITTLE attention is to be paid to what was once called “integrity.”
    Incidentally, the National Academies Press has a video up on their website regarding the 3rd Edition of their book: “On Being a Scientist; a guide to responsible conduct in research.” Odd coincidence, also, that there is an article on page 29 of Popular Science, October 2009 on the issue of scientific data falsification, fabrication and modification. It reports that up to one third of some 11,000 scientists surveyed (anonymously, I assume) admitted to such things as failing to publish data that contradicted earlier findings.
    I fear a day coming soon when the public no longer trusts scientists, at all.
    Eugene Langschwager
    Executive Director, Climate Science Coalition of America
    http://www.climatescienceamerica.org

  38. eo (15:44:31) :
    “Talking of polar bear, the Yellowstone has the classic history of the collapse of wildlife population from over protection. Remember the hunting of wolves and over protection of the deer population. Ultimately the deer population collapsed not from the wolves and hunting but from starvation. If the present trend continues there is a big possibility the polar bear population will collapse from mass starvation caused by over population. Blame the death on global warming.”
    And it’s not just that they starve to death from over population, but they die leaner and, most of all, not benefitting anyone that might have otherwise hunted them. There’s flies and fungi etc that need that meat more than man, you know! But the animal-worshippers, they get people thinking that only a bunch “ass-backwards rednecks” living in a developed nation abundant with food are the only ones to hunt. They never mention all the people in the world who absolutely depend on hunting to get by.
    Anyway, “the consensus” days are numbered. It’s apparent to more and more people what “the consensus” is all about, and they’re juuust not buying the AGWers tactics anymore. Even so… the push grows. The “consensus” will not only be defeated, it’ll be a total route from the field.

  39. Sethi? Sethi who? Science is NOT, and never has been, for the weak and faint of heart. When a “scien-tester” buys into the BS of his contemporaries without expending a single erg of mental energy, he/she has already retired, compromised their integrity, etc, etc, ad nausea. Who would have thunk that a dumb, little, late 19th Century patent clerk would have amounted to anything in the 20th Century? Who would have imagined that some newborn kid floating on a tar covered reed basket would have survived and been remembered through the ages more so than all the rulers of the Upper and Lower Nile. For the patent clerks, or students, or PhD’s, who happen to come upon this material: If you do nothing else in your short little life, at least have the guts to stand on your own hind legs; success is not measured in dollars, yen, euros, rubbles, or the praise of idiots who kiss the hands and backsides of politicians, publishers, contemporaries.

  40. It just isn’t climatology.
    Astronomy is the same way (and other scientific disciplines, as well).
    Why?
    Scientific disciplines that have little objective observation & measurement to support their “consensus” end up enforcing their “consensus” by censorship and banishment from the “community”.

  41. So it is written, so let it be done.
    So what is the “Gore Effect” all about?
    You can own a piece of land, you can own a business, but you cannot own the climate, or any other force of nature.

  42. Sometimes when the plane is going down it’s better to bail out.After this winter
    I feel the AGW Ford Trimotor is going to leave a smoking hole in the desert..
    -Or tundra,as it will…

  43. There are some comments worth paying attention to in this thread. Specifically those to do with the societal aspects and consequences thereof. In some ways this entire subject of climate change is merely a skirmish in the never-ending battle for cultural/social supremacy. Merely carried on with new terms and technology. A mix of science and magic, not terribly different than that practiced by Himmler and company, or their various predecessors. And with the same predictable outcome.

  44. COMBING FOR CONSENSUS?
    Is there a list of all scientists fired over their positions on global warming?
    I have not seen such a list, but are we hearing about a couple random cases, or is this a wide spread COMBING FOR CONSENSUS?
    Google Results finds 10,200 for “scientist fired” “global warming”.

  45. “For the patent clerks, or students, or PhD’s, who happen to come upon this material: If you do nothing else in your short little life, at least have the guts to stand on your own hind legs; success is not measured in dollars, yen, euros, rubbles, or the praise of idiots who kiss the hands and backsides of politicians, publishers, contemporaries.” Pascvaks
    Amen, amen, amen!
    Besides, you probably will still eat and have a roof over your head. Any scientist who needs much more is not worth the brain God gave him, IMO.
    Ah, but you need your precious and expensive equipment? Then fight big government! Then there will be enough PRIVATE resources to fund you!

  46. Hans Erren (16:20:16) :
    @Michael T (15:48:55)
    Peter Hearden wrote: what’s so special of a retiring polar bear expert?
    The facts that he did not retire but was forbidden to speak.

    Apparently he did retire from his post with the Nunavut government and therefore was no longer one of the Canadian government’s appointees to the PBSG (he was replaced by Dr Lily Peacock polar bear biologist for the Nunavut government).

  47. It is often quite difficult to follow the detailed forensic statistics needed to debunk so many of the global warming alarmist papers. I am very happy that so many take the time to do so but the statistical analysis will put the public to sleep.
    It is stories like this that show the AGW alarmists are [snip]. This story clear cut and easy to understand. Politics is controlling what presented by the government sponsored agencies and science is not needed. This story needs to be presented whenever and wherever the AGW alarmists try to influence public opinion. The public can understand this story.

  48. Here is from an excellent paper published by a promising young Canadian scientist…
    “This research was supported by grants from the
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
    Sciences (CFCAS), the Natural Sciences and
    Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and
    Environment Canada.”
    Indeed the CFCAS message is clear:
    http://www.cfcas.org/Videos/PolesInPeril.html
    So is the CMOS bias astoundingly likely based on Mann’s discredited hockey Stick 1,000years…:
    http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepos_e.pdf
    Indeed, only political correctness rules from the mouth of CMOS president worthy of the worst Stalinian “public confessions” and self flagellation:
    “1) Carbon offset funding
    While flying into Halifax for our 2009 Congress in late May, I reflected on the CO2 emissions I was sending into the atmosphere. I have tried over the past year to cut my greenhouse gas imprint, but my increasing air travel undid this effort. For example, my travel to Halifax sent another ton or two of CO2 into the atmosphere…”
    This kind of self depreciating hypocrisy would be laughable if the risk of seeing scientific research highjacked into advocacy of government funded scientism was not real: in such frame who would dare to present opposite results to the AGW dogma, knowing perfectly well theirs and their supervisor careers would be in jeopardy and their funding likely witheld?
    Why would we see otherwise many research papers include the obligatory reference to anthropogenic global warming even if the results identify perfectly natural variations or natural events?
    So it is little surprise the PhD candidate who posts on Globe and Mail forums under the handle Streamwise Vorticity is defending HIS funding, courtesy of taxpayers, by all means of political and union activism, draping himself in the shroud of science, authority and well understood anonymity -which I do respect btw.

  49. Many of you already know my father, Dr. Tim Ball. Many of you also know the (snip) he has endured for over 30 years. I can tell you that what people hear and read about regarding scientists who disagree and are muzzled are only hearing a fraction of the truth of the matter. This debate was made political decades ago, and not by those who disagree with AGW. Dr. Ball realized long ago that this battle would not be won on a scientific battlefield, but on a political one. His retirement from teaching allowed this battle to occur. As a man of conscience and wisdom, he taught his students (and myself ) how to make up our own minds. Do the research and ask the hard questions. It always makes me laugh when the people who question his academic credentials are always listed as “climate experts”. It would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

  50. “Stephen Wilde (13:56:31) :
    That is what leaves the field wide open for experienced, enthusiastic and intelligent amateurs like me (I hope) and many other contributors to this site.”
    Stephen, I agree with you completely.
    This mania for mediocre, unquestioning, popular consensus goes right across the board in human affairs, from science, to politics, to religion, to finance, and presents an incredible opportunity to those few ‘eccentrics’ who want to work everything out for themselves and will only trust their own rational conclusions.
    One of the more interesting places to observe the phenomenon is the investment industry, where you will frequently find the entire herd pursuing the utterly mediocre, and completely ignoring the real jewels.
    Clever company promoters, who know how to initiate and lead such trends, exploit the phenomenon to the maximum. Like the irritatingly popular kid in class, who initiates or is the first to pick up on the latest craze.
    But there are also phenomenal opportunities for the few with independent judgement, knowledge and analytical skills, who can quietly identify the genuine fundamental investments that are being overlooked and derided in the rush to follow the latest trend.
    In the late 1990s, coming out of a long career in the mining industry, surrounded by engineers, accountants and other rational beings, into a second career as a stockbroker, I was amazed by this phenomenon. Outstanding investments that seemed like a no-brainer to any rational individual, were being scorned in favour of the latest fashionable nonsense.
    For example, on two occasions I arranged presentations to a large broking firm by a friend of mine. This man was a former senior executive of a global mining company, who had secured a mineral deposit that contained a reasonable well-defined two million ounces of gold and a million tonnes of copper. He had this in a very small listed company that had a market capitalisation of just three million dollars, and needed interim funds to continue developing it. Each time I was told: “Forget it. We couldn’t risk our reputation. It’s not dotcom!” The investment was a no-brainer, but nobody would throw sixpence at it, not even in the mining land of Western Australia.
    Four years later, his company had a market capitalisation of four billion dollars and was a phenomenal success, whilst the entire dotcom mania had subsided again into nothing. But at the time nobody was thinking for themselves. And I don’t think many of them ever do.
    And if AGW were a company, run by a man called Al Gore, I wouldn’t put a cent into it. I’d be looking around for something small, real and genuine, run by somebody that I actually trusted, doing something that actually made sense.

  51. Lots of good quotes in this paper…and I particularly liked this one:
    “Science will surely lose its hard-won credibility with the public as many ‘Scientific Associations’ get caught with their pants down: supporting an international [the IPCC, of course] unelected, unaudited committee, without any evidence.”
    So true…and so sadly pathetic about the IPCC. Well said.
    Are we as a species, showing evidence, with this bizarre quasi-religious blind “consensus” that so many degreed scientists around the world seem to be lapsing into, are we showing evidence, with this behavior, of mass psychological delusion??
    It won’t be the first time it has happened in human history, by far.
    But it IS quite peculiar..that those in the world who are supposed to devote their lives to sound research, rational thought and inductive reasoning..are allowing this one to propagate.
    They should, but are afraid to speak out against the REAL wizards of all of this ridiculous worldwide mess: the politicians and ideologues. And with good reason…as the politicians and ideologues control the funding.
    Then the press then fans it on to the populous.
    Voila! Mass delusion.
    But many of us are not fooled…thankfully.
    And soon it will be time to storm the gates.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  52. David,
    Good for you Dad to speak the truth. I have been privately warning people abut AGW nonsense for over 6 years. I honestly never took it seriously before that – perhaps because I already knew too much about atmospheric science to take any of the nonsense seriously.
    It is indeed unfortunately quite risky to speak out publicly (which I avoid) even if you have taken a degree in Physics with graduate level courses in atmospheric physics (which I do). Knowing a thing or two about the science at hand is pretty much irrelevant as the “science is settled”. I have personal experience of people who have been extremely successful in promoting their careers by grandstanding on AGW science and the threat it poses – powerpoint presentations from PHD’s proclaiming the upcoming doom are a sure ticket to be invited to present at an important conference and obviously successful in demand “distinguished” speakers who make grand proclamations (where everyone nods there heads in agreement) often secure promotions.
    The fact is, in my personal experience, nobody wants to hear the truth or if you speak the truth then you are a denier! It usually kills conversation and teh person looks at you as if you are a bit of weirdo (“the “science is settled” in their minds).

  53. I would add that PHD’s that present dire proclamations, in my experience, often do NOT have degrees in atmospheric physics – nor are they often aware of all the research and history of Geophysics (study of physics of the earth sciences). Nevertheless, a chemist or astrophysicist or engineer or even biologist will all gladly hop on the podium and rant and rave over “the end of the world provided we don’t drop everything and solve this huge problem of AGW before it is too late” because it has been demonstarted that people don’t laugh you off the stage and this preacher’s type sermon gets them on the gravy train of “recognition” within the workplace…

  54. Here’s the original story of the banned polar bear expert: http://tinyurl.com/lruy8a. Yes, he had retired but was not invited to the meeting because of his thoughts. The thought police did not like him. Fascist scientists — that is a comforting thought, no?

  55. “”G20 leaders call for restructured economic WORLD GOVERNANCE”” !!!!
    France24 TV about 30 seconds ago. THAT is where the problem is.

  56. It also explains why a lot of academics and government researchers wait till they retire before “rocking the boat”; they no longer have to chant the mantra of AGW (or silently let others do so) for fear of maintaining the income they need to maintain a home and family. The concept of extortion comes immediately to mind.
    This is very true in my experience. It is true in academia at all levels from kindergarten (I have kids) to University (I have a kid there too) as well as in scientific or engineering type businesses everywhere (where I work). My experience is that the whole thing is far worse in Europe (where AGW, the environment as a whole and showing that you feel guilty about it all has become the ONLY accepted normal behaviour) than in North America. Disagreement is acceptable but only as long as it is NOT open and does not challenge the wisdom of authority.

  57. “[Girlfriend,] I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.” — Andy Derocher.
    “Andy” is an unusual name for the head of the Popular Girls Club. Perhaps the right spelling is “Andie”?
    I’d been under the impression that we engineers were the deficient ones in professional social skills, but I see that the scientists have a thing or two to teach us there.
    Did Mr Derocher crack raw eggs in Mr Taylor’s mailbox too? Unroll toilet paper on his house? Set off a stink-bomb in his locker? Come to think of it, did Mr Derocher actually graduate from secondary school?
    If this kind of immaturity is what attracts grant money these days, I think I’d better switch to something honorable, like investment banking.

  58. >>>This kind of censorship is not unique to the climate change
    >>>topic. Rather, examples of it can be found in virtually every
    >>>discipline and area of life.
    In aviation it is known as ‘tombstone engineering’.
    Nothing ever changes until a few people die.
    .

  59. Hello David Ball!
    What a small world indeed! Your father and mine were old Air Force friends. Imagine my surprise to see you posting here.
    Your father is a brilliant man as well as a courageous one. He has certainly done his fair
    share, and then some, in exposing this political bogeyman.
    From one of the Schmidt clan… thank you Dr. Ball!

  60. All this is fascinating!
    I recall being taught the orthodoxy that Henry VIIII was a ‘Bad King’ for ordering the dissolution of the Monasteries.
    In retrospect, it was a doctrine of the ‘left-liberal’ (aka socialist) teaching profession, who were trying to instil the idea that state ownership or nationalisation was self-evidently a good thing and ought to be an article of faith.
    Those Monasteries, Abbeys, etc, were in effect tax-funded institutions that were self-regulating, self-selecting, and whose ideology was beyond any rational argument. As such they became corrupt and merciless, and eventually offended against the human spirit … as do all such institutions and organisations in the end.
    Nationally funded organisation, and particulary those that employ scientists and so should be temples of rationality, are not immune from this natural process of growth asn decay. They are meta-organisms after all.
    And so, AGW-think is a sign of a deeper rot, like a brightly coloured fungus sprouting from the trunk of an ostensibly healthy tree.
    And in time, are we to see a new ‘dissolution of the ministries’? We live in hope that it will be done as peacefully and painlessly as Henry VII’s great dissolution, where the material and human resources were recycled to great effect.
    In summary, the power that binds the AGWers is now being directed to misanthropic ends. […. even simpler; the AGW movement has now been infiltrated by the devil and is doing evil] Supporters should now shun involvement, and find other collective enterprises that promise more philanthropic outcomes.

  61. Fortunately the polar ice does not list to the consensus. I’m not sure what the record is for ice in Antartica, but the current position can’t be far from it?
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
    Once the Arctic freeze up gathers pace, the total sea ice record will probably fall.
    I wonder if that will be noted at Copenhagen? I think not.

  62. After reading the letter from Derocher above, I am reminded I am always fascinated by these accounts of people acknowledging that they are not specialists in a specific climate field but tell us that they are acting on the word of a good authority, and that things are very dire indeed.
    Whenever you take the time to check the “good authority” and go to the source of the claims, you often find that the authority in question cannot in honesty support the level of catastrophism claimed, or sometimes even confirm if said claim is more than a weakly supported hypothesis. When faced with this, the authorities will then often mutter about how their caveats have been ignored or misinterpreted, but do nothing to correct the situation.
    It strikes me that this behaviour acts as a perverse kind of “division of labour”, designed, not for any real productivity as Adam Smith would have had it, but for enabling a kind of deniability of responsibility, allowing the heightening effect of propaganda and easing the kind of political manoeuvring we see here.

  63. The pressure to conform to Group Think is becoming more extreme in every walk of life… It is taught in our State education system for a very early age… It is regurgitated and re-enforced by the Main Stream Media at every opportunity… It has become a pre-requisite for employment and funding… It is increasing policed and enforced by the State with an iron fist.
    The challenge for so many is to retain a grip on reality and their sanity in this bizarre world of Group Think. The pressure to conform is enormous especially if you have the responsibility for maintaining a family and home.
    But their comes a time later in life when you are free to seek and speak the truth… That time has arrived for me… I only hope I have the courage and insight to face this challenge.

  64. This seems to be one part of a growing trend where you are pronounced as an expert and receive prizes despite having a track record of being abjectly wrong all the time.
    Those economists who predicted a crash have been excluded from any recovery discussions and those who were flat wrong are expected to fix the mess they helped to perpetuate. Nobel prizes were won for the wrong-headed equations that were used in those Panglossian growth models.
    Those who were proven right about the consequences of an attack on Iraq are still excluded from debate and those who were totally wrong are consulted about what to do now in Afghanistan.
    Despite numerous (almost consensus) erroneous claims that oil would be 200 or 300 dollars a barrel from the peak oilers and traders, those very same people are still being asked for their opinions. Meanwhile oil discoveries are rising again counter to those numerous predictions from the “experts”. Peak oil is always 30 years away.
    Erlich, Holdren and the other population and resource limit pessimists have won the most prestigious Science prizes simply because the prizegivers thought pessimistic fiction more intellectually appealing than reality.
    Schneider didn’t lose face for being totally wrong about the coming ice age and neither did the Woods Hole oceanographers for being wrong about a new gulf-stream shift ice age. Both came from not actually seeming to know the basics of their own field. Neither have Emanuel or Hansen lost any kudos despite their predictions and the science based on them being out of step even with consensus opinion. Au contraire; both have won top prizes.
    Clearly you can be a maverick as long you predict catastrophes. It just doesn’t matter if you are wrong. There’s a farmers saying that you should listen to the experts and then do exactly the opposite of what they recommend. Being skeptical of so-called experts is still the most sensible position in a growing number of fields where simplistic linear thinking is continually trumped by non-linear reality and where too many people pretend to know things with certainty based not in facts but beliefs.
    And it’s not just science that is dumbed down. The most depressingly boring book will always win the top prize. Photographic competitions will continue to judge black and white entries more favorably. Art experts will continue to wax lyrically over paintings and sculptures that might have been produced by 3-year olds. Fashion designers will continue to be praised for hideous clothes. etc, etc. It’s not about reality any more; we are directed by pretensions. It’s about being in with the in crowd.

  65. Robert E. Phelan (15:06:48) :
    I am a skeptic precisely because as a sociologist I recognize the “science is settled” argument for precisely what is, an attempt to deviantize an otherwise defensible argument. A student of sociology may not be qualified to pronounce on the validity of predictions on CO2 doubling, but he damn well knows what the effects of mixing science and politics are likely to be. THAT is our area of expertise.

    I completely agree, this issue is key.
    I’m not a sociologist, but I thought the same. When they said “the science is settled”, that to me meant that the truth of the matter can no longer be known. I once asked someone, what if the IPCC came out one day and declared that AGW was wrong? Their reply was, “then I’ll know the oil companies got hold of them”.
    Proponents keep talking about “the science” (you know, like “the truth”, “the reality”, “the one true way”, “the one true god”, etc.) And yet, for over 50 years now, famous thinkers have explored how culture shapes our perceptions and is actually the structure in which we construct our maps (of the real world out there). Try to point out to any AGW science proponent that “the science” also has a cultural component, “the culture of AGW scientists”, and it falls on completely deaf ears.
    The point about being embedded in a culture is that you don’t know you’re in it until you step outside it, like a fish doesn’t know it is in water. Like, and I said this earlier, I used to live for a while in South Africa when Apartheid was still in force. And it is the most remarkable thing–everybody around you is wrong, but nobody, including all the science teachers, stops to question the system. They would simply answer that the rest of the world “doesn’t understand” South Africa. That is what they would say. The rest of the world “doesn’t understand”. And you know what? After 5 years there, even I started muttering it!
    The culture of scientists should be a culture that upholds the scientific methods of objectivity, falsifiability, open mindedness, respect, and so on.
    People on this site keep asking the AGWs, what about falsifiability? What about the scientific method? The answer we get back is, “you guys are naive, you’re expecting a ‘smoking gun’, science doesn’t work that way, science is a gradual accumulation of a weight of evidence”. In short, when we say, “what about equal human rights?”, they say, “you guys don’t understand, you’re naive about how South Africa works, you expect it all to be ideal, that’s not how it works in real life”. Meanwhile the rest of the world, you know, the countries that ‘didn’t understand’, had full sanctions in force against South Africa. And RSA still didn’t get the point.
    Point to mistakes by individual scientists, and they answer the culture keeps things in check. Point to bias in the culture, and they answer the scientists are expert individuals. This constant, don’t look here, look over there, no don’t look there, look over here, sleight of hand, is habitual in AGW proponent’s views.
    As I say, when you are inside a culture, and by inside I mean, all your acquaintances right up to the people who pay your salary and who educate you, all unquestioningly support a particular belief, like, Apartheid is the best possible workable system in the land, and may even be part of the natural order of things in the eyes of God, when everyone around you unquestioningly upholds this view, you cannot fight it without great cost to yourself. Not only is it at great cost, but those inside the culture will ridicule you. They’ll just laugh. What a silly chap, he doesn’t understand how things work. It is unlikely that you would question it anyway, it will simply seem so obviously right that it is never mentioned.
    We’ve had 50 years of research into the power structures in cultures, and despite that, the IPCC wants to act like they are immune to cultural bias. The Chairman of the IPCC regularly likens skeptics to “flat earthers”. He does this publicly, on video even!
    The moment the culture of the IPCC and AGW scientists demonstrated that they had become closed minded, wedded to their conjectures, was the moment I became a skeptic. The moment the community of AGWs announced a consensus view, at that moment they all became embedded in a culture. They don’t know they are imbedded in a culture, they just look at their job titles, where it says “scientist”, and think that’s what they do, independently, freely, but ask them about weak evidence, and they refer you to the culture’s consensus map view. They call it “the science”, but the consensus view is “the culture”, a culture, a group, a dynamic of professional affiliations, respect, salaries, institutional agendas, and so on.
    One of the origins of Apartheid was that the while miners were losing jobs to the black miners. It was in part a matter of politics and economics. It was also part of a difference of existing cultures, of differing moral outlooks, belief in God, or not, and so on. Imagine the cost of trying to dismantle all that. That is the cost that “the rest of the world doesn’t understand”.
    AGW proponents like to say that it is the culture of ordinary people, the culture of consumerism, the culture of Western imperialism, the culture of the corporations, that won’t allow them to accept AGW. It is too “inconvenient”. But we have no evidence that AGW proponents, and the IPCC, are themselves immune to cultural bias. Remember, anyone who disagrees “doesn’t understand”, and is a “flat eather”. They are shadow boxing.

  66. Larry Kirk 20:41:28
    You sound like the sort of man to advise a chap what to do with his pathetically small savings. Er…. you don’t happen to give out tips, do you?

  67. While I don’t mind typos on websites as much, this pdf looks like it should be more professional. Can anyone contact Joanne, and let her know that her third paragraph has the incorrect PSBG acronym? — John M Reynolds

  68. JamesG (03:05:52) :
    This seems to be one part of a growing trend where you are pronounced as an expert and receive prizes despite having a track record of being abjectly wrong all the time.
    Those economists who predicted a crash have been excluded from any recovery discussions and those who were flat wrong are expected to fix the mess they helped to perpetuate. Nobel prizes were won for the wrong-headed equations that were used in those Panglossian growth models.

    Taleb’s book, The Black Swan, describes Extremistan as that place where sensational success comes from luck alone. (He reads a bit like a grumpy old man, and would no doubt be grumpy about my summary, but there it is.)
    Taleb describes areas in life where Extremistan dominate, like the success of a pop song, and areas where Mediocristan dominates, like the average height of a human.
    Perhaps, the further we get from simple tangible physical objects, like rocks hurtling through space, or chemicals interacting in a test tube (the ones where science has been very good), the more we get into larger, complex, dynamic processes, the more we get into the social dynamics of science, and the more “the science” relies on consensus, the more a school of thought becomes a victim to accidental fame and success, ie. the more the rules of Extremistan govern the outcome.
    In other worlds, the more people claim that AGW is correct due to consensus, the more it becomes likely that it is the product of accidental success.
    (If simple falsifiability was available then the matter could be decided concretely and the situation would be more like Mediocristan. But when scientists start saying it is naive to expect a smoking gun, then the more we are heading towards Extremistan).
    In Extremistan, two things which are of very similar quality, where perhaps one musical recording is only slightly better than another, leads to one of the two gaining the lion share of attention and the other fading into obscurity–and not necessarily even the slightly better one.
    The lack of simple falsifiability, and the “weight” of consensus, is indicative of the situation being governed by the rules of Extremistan, where the winner is simply the one that got lucky, not necessarily the one that was right.
    The internet however, can help people discover that which would have faded to obscurity. Remember that the AGW insiders would dismiss this blog as merely an accident of attention lavished on a lower quality idea, but that same accident of social attention could just as well be what led to AGW theory gaining the upper hand in the first place (or is that second, after ice ages of the 70s… which we are told never received widespread support… or as they say in Extremistan: “never got lucky”.)

  69. Anthony,
    You ask for suggestions on improving WUWT. I often recommend it to contacts, but I feel they rarely become regular readers. I think your blog has become rather arcane, with all the acronyms litttering every post. It would be very helpful if say every Monday someone from a small team of experts you know could do short piece summarising the evidence on a series of topics, aimed at interested but not currently up-to-date readers. Say on sea levels, ice extent, actual warming/cooling, state of instruments etc etc. I’m thinking of people who don’t know terms like Stevenson whatsit, DDT, GISS, and the like.

  70. Rob Phelan, Savethesharks and others on the sociology of groupthink:
    All my professional life as an ecologist/biologist I have been plagued by a second degree in social anthropology – with a special interest in science, scientists as a ‘tribe’ and the linguistics of knowledge. Despite my appreciation that scientists could not hope to operate without group-think bias (from wider social, political, religious and financial pressures, as well as institutional prior-commitment and suppression of dissent), I still operated as a scientists active in policy formulation – believing strongly that with the right institutional safeguards science was an essential foundation for action.
    In my work on ocean protection (as part of a global but small team that prepared the way for the Precautionary Approach to dealing with toxic wastes) I saw how such group-think operated at the highest levels within the UN system. The science was modified by the ideology and impervious to argument: the dogma was that any toxic material could be diluted and dispersed in the vast oceans, and if we got it wrong, we could always turn off the taps. New (in the mid-1980s) computer models of global circulation predicted the eventual concentrations and safe limits. Vast resources were devoted to these models – and very little to actually reviewing the evidence upon which they were based. A model constructed in 1980 could still be in use in 1990 (with add-ons), but its modellers completely out-of-touch with new data (the reality). Where big investements had been made (industrial processes disposal pathways and monitoring) there was clearly a vested interest in not-finding evidence that might contradict the model and in not highlighting avenues of inquiry that might lead in that direction – appropriate statistical checks on the reliability of monitoring were not made.
    Only a handful of concerned scientists stood against the consensus science and policy – and they would have had no leverage at all (easily ignored) despite many peer-reviewed papers, without the support of firstly, Greenpeace International (through my work with that organisation, and then the more radical countries party to the UN ocean treatises (e.g. Germany, Denmark and Sweden).
    Eventually we prevailed politically and got the laws changed. In the final year, I went before the key UN panel – GESAMP, Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, with the intention of providing them a critique of their errors and suggestions for avoiding such in the future. The Panel refused to engage in detailed discussion and suggested the peer-reviewed literature was the appropriate place for such a critique (they were all competent scientists) and I knew they thought – fat-chance he has of that! Actually, the editor of the top journal in marine pollution had sat with me on a UK government commission – and he invited me to publish.
    It took a year to properly prepare the paper – and cost about £20,000 in 1992 money. That’s what it really takes for a complex review paper properly and fully referenced and up-to-date.
    The paper met a wall of silence – except, postcard after postcard came in from marine labs worldwide requesting a reprint – over 100. Mostly from junior scientists letting me know they were reading the paper.
    After publishing that, I left the field – as an ecologist I had other fish to fry – we had won the battle. I hoped the UN would take note of the recommendations.
    Ten years later, whilst leading on a government agency project to integrate renewable energy supplies into the British landscape (and community) – I came to look at the climate models (a development of the 1980s GCMs) – largely because I realised that you could not integrate renewable energy on the scale envisaged without enormous environmental damage. I began to find all the same errors and lack of safeguards I had challenged before –
    group-think/suppression of dissenting voices/selective participants at meetings/false consensus building on the science/pressure on dissidents – including funding, ridicule, exclusion…………
    and with one very disturbing difference – there were no powerful environmental campaign groups or dissenting governments to fund the critics!
    I checked then to see the citation index of my paper:
    P.Taylor (1993) The State of the Marine Environment ‘A critique of the work and the role of the Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP).
    Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 3: 120-127.
    It had only three citations! It had been completely ignored by the establishment it was aimed at reforming.
    At first, the group-think ignores criticism. When it simply cannot, it attacks the critic. It ignores new data and chooses to believe the virtual reality of the model.
    In my book ‘Chill’ I devote a chapter to this collective ‘delusion’. Then I look at the sociology of ‘collusion’ – the vested interest in not engaging with the dissenting voices, pretending either they do not exist, or where they do, they are cranks, mavericks, politically motivated….whatever necessary not to actually deal with the science.
    My book is published by a small house. My normal publisher (of my contribution to ecology) Earthscane, declined on the grounds that it criticised the IPCC (whose work they also publish) and that my arguments should be first published in a peer-reviewed journal. As I pointed out – that takes time, and whereas I have a good reputation in marine protection, I am unknown in climate policy – and reviews of this nature are always invited from acknowledged experts. Its a slow process and I may yet get a paper together, despite no funding or institutional base.
    Recently, it was suggested that I take up debate with George Monbiot, a prolific writer on the environment, and defender of the AGW orthodoxy – he had offered to debate Ian Plimer, but that foundered for some reason. I offered to take up the challenge after several people asked me to post on the Guardian blog.
    Monbiot’s reply has been that he would debate my ‘novel’ ideas (they are, of course, not novel – but a critical review of the published papers and data – and lay bare the internal lack of consensus even within the IPCC on key aspects: cloud behaviour, ocean cycles, water vapour amplifiers, solar output and climate links etc) – but only after they were published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal!
    Its avoidance, of course. Ian Plimer has no climate papers to his credit, but gained enough publicity so that he could not be ignored. I have yet to review his work – but Monbiot dismisses it as full of ‘schoolboy howlers’. He would not read my book, and I doubt he actually read Plimer’s. This is typical of the dogmatist – but it creates ripples throughout the science world, where those who might usefully contribute some critical awareness, are scared to enter the heated controversy. Monbiot then unwittingly contributes to the atmosphere of repression.
    I drew his attention to the endorsement on Chill’s cover by Jackson Davis, whom I have had a long-term working relationship and enduring friendship – even though on climate issues, he has been a member of the UN framework convention on climate, and was the drafting author of the Kyoto Protocol – he says my book is a must-read for all on either side of the debate and that the questions must be answered before global warming can be taken as truth. That counts for nothing in the eyes of a non-expert like Monbiot, who is concerned to defend the monolith.
    I am at a loss now to know what forums might exist to advance the current situation. Petitions and alternative conferences are simply ignored. Only the dubiously motivated Business-As-Usual brigade in the right-wing press take up the banner and usually in ways readily dismissed as biased. My motivation has been that a global cooling will render all the billions spent on mitigation completely useless – and the real focus on food, agriculture, water and the quality of life under a cooling scenario, is not addressed.

  71. Philip_B @15:46:02
    As others have noted AGW is a socio-political phenomena. But we shouldn’t forget that the AGW phenomena was engineered by the United Nations
    …under the guidance of the Evil Canadian Maurice Strong who organized the Rio summit leading to the Kyoto treaty. The one who hides from international corruption charges in China and wants to destroy Western industrial society.
    (If you can imagine an Evil Canadian:-)

  72. Regarding Maurice Strong; Is it not hypocritical that someone who has made millions of dollars from industry wants to stop it all? He (and Soros) have more money than anyone could ever possibly need. Now they want people to restrict their lives to a bare minimum. Al Gore as well. Do as I say, not as I do. Strong now lives in China under diplomatic immunity (as a member of the UN). In theory, the world governance is a great idea. Unfortunately, due to human nature (absolute power, etc.) this is a slippery slope. I would love to see all people of all nations work for the betterment of mankind. I do not believe we are ready yet for such a world. Once we sort out the problems of energy and governance, crime and punishment, and a plethora of other issues (there are still pirates on the oceans for crying out loud), perhaps this step can be taken. To hand over world power to someone like Strong or Soros (both are self serving sociopaths, in my opinion), is indeed asking for trouble.

  73. Peter Taylor:
    “I am at a loss now to know what forums might exist to advance the current situation. Petitions and alternative conferences are simply ignored.”
    Do not be too despondent, for to borrow words from Karl Marx, the AGW ideology contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
    As authorities move ever forward into the abyss, as the rationing of energy is ratcheted ever more tightly, the sinews of society will snap one by one. First, the tax take will fall as unemployment climbs forcing governments to create ever more “green” jobs with the result that real purchasing power falls, leading to – a fall in tax take. Government will struggle to find recources to pay for welfare, education and infra structure. More and more of the services will fail, until the they turn finally to the architects of global misery – the AGW scientists themselves, and cut the support from under them. Facing their own anihalation, the world will discover that, suddenly, they admit that they were probably wrong.

  74. A big shout out to all you Winnipegers out there, especially those from the Schmidt clan!! Hope you are all healthy and happy !! It is a small world, but I wouldn’t want to paint it !! All the best to you folks. Glad to see you are getting a bit of nice weather in Winnipeg. It was a brutal winter and a fairly dismal summer. Here in Calgary, it has not been a tremendous summer( we finally got to 30C in late September). We can easily cope and adapt (my little ones had a great summer!!). Changes aren’t permanent, but change is. Much love to all those in Winnipeg ( a town of unbelievable music and restaurants). I never let derogatory comments about Winnipeg slip by unchallenged. It is a wonderful place.

  75. At (15:47:53), King of Cool said “If science is on your side all you need is a sales department to demonstrate it.”
    I couldn’t agree more. In a way, it is sad to even consider the need for a PR machine to distribute good science. However, the AGW community has not shown any restraint in selling their positions using whatever PR is available. Unfortunately for the skeptics, that includes most of the formerly mainstream media. While the media buzz, with few exceptions, is decidedly pro-AGW, we should not forget that there are many information outlets available that are not controlled by Big Media and I would argue that is where you will find most of the readers, anyway.
    What we need are more people the prototypical American can-do attitude that looks for creative ways to bypass the roadblocks and achieve their goals (this is certainly not limited to those of us in the U.S.). There are more ways to distribute information and build influence now than we would have ever dreamed of even ten years ago, so if the message isn’t getting out, it is our fault. This blog site shows that there is significant interest in the skeptical point of view, and I’ll venture a bet that the influence of this site goes well beyond those who read it directly. I wouldn’t be surprised if talk around the water cooler at work is much more effective than anything printed in the New York Times or spewed on CNN.
    When I graduated from engineering school 15-20 years, ago, we had been instructed to find creative ways to achieve our goals. We were taught that nothing was an impediment to progress…it was the engineer’s job to find ways around the roadblocks and make it work. I’ve seen a disturbing trend in the last 5 years or so, in that the new engineers we hire do not seem to have been given the same fire and determination. Honestly, a significant number of them appear to have the attitude that it probably won’t work, so why bother trying? Maybe it is a generational quirk but we need some leadership, both in the AGW discussion and in many other areas, to bypass the elites that seem bent on imposing their plan for this great nation.
    There is hope, out there, though. The supposedly uneducated backwoods “hicks and hillbillies” get it. In all my years living in small farm towns, I’ve seen the local average Joe ignore much of what happens in Washington D.C. because regardless of how it swings left to right, the impact at the local level has generally been small. Having said that, I have never seen the level of “pitchfork” energy so high as it is now. Cap and Trade may unleash the slumbering giant, and unfortunately for the folks in charge, the giant is armed to the teeth (and getting more so every day). It is going to be an interesting couple of years coming up.

  76. Peter Taylor (06:35:06)
    Its avoidance, of course. Ian Plimer has no climate papers to his credit, but gained enough publicity so that he could not be ignored. I have yet to review his work – but Monbiot dismisses it as full of ’schoolboy howlers’. He would not read my book, and I doubt he actually read Plimer’s. This is typical of the dogmatist – but it creates ripples throughout the science world, where those who might usefully contribute some critical awareness, are scared to enter the heated controversy. (my emphasis)
    I am no fan of Monbiot, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to state that his questions have merit and cannot be ignored. Pilmer has chosen to ignore the questions, and therefore has lost credibility, IMO. I may be wrong as I have not read every single exchange.
    If you read Monbiot’s questions, you can see that he has read the book (or at least someone has and fed him the topics to challenge – it makes no difference). We should all stand up and be available for challenge, lest we fall into the same court as the Al Gore Warmers.

  77. jmrSudbury (04:00:25) :
    While I don’t mind typos on websites as much, this pdf looks like it should be more professional. Can anyone contact Joanne, and let her know that her third paragraph has the incorrect PSBG acronym? — John M Reynolds

    It’s SPPI, they use gloss to distract from the content, like they do with all Monckton’s polemics. I see Joanne has adopted his style of ad hominem attack too.
    REPLY: Phil, why not show us one of your publications from Princeton to show us and Ms. Nova how it is done? – Anthony

  78. Eugene (16:58:09) :
    I fear a day coming soon when the public no longer trusts scientists, at all.

    That is my fear as well. If people in general don’t recognise the pseudoscientists of today for what they are, how can we expect people to recognise the real scientists of tomorrow?
    Science will suffer,

  79. Phil, the ad hominem attack was perfected by your side decades ago. A little late to whine about its use now, don’t you think?

  80. Phil. (09:41:58),
    If you don’t like Viscount Monckton’s ‘gloss’, simply read the regular link instead of the more professional looking [glossy to you] pdf.
    Admit it, Phil, you’re just jealous because skeptics have a real Viscount, and all you’ve got is Al Gore and company. [Oops, I forgot. You’ve got the believer in the “grey goo” that’s gonna eat civilization: the truly weird Prince Charles The Certified Moonbat.]
    .
    Also, Jennifer Marohasy has posted more info on the odious censorship actions of Mr Derocher, who refused credentials to a long time polar bear expert from attending the conference, specifically because he had questioned the AGW=CPO2 conjecture:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/exile-for-non-believers-polar-bear-expert-told-to-stay-home/#more-6465
    Derocher makes a swell little goose-stepping brownshirt, doesn’t he?

  81. Because the warmists lack the science, the so called “consensus” has become the last frontier.
    They simply send out those who threaten the consensus.
    What should worry us is the fact that these are practices that were common in socialist societies like the USSR, Nazi Germany and China.
    It’s a strong indicator where we are heading

  82. “Point to mistakes by individual scientists, and they answer the culture keeps things in check. Point to bias in the culture, and they answer the scientists are expert individuals.”
    Science has gotten a swelled head and convinced itself that it is infallible, because it has an infallible method and procedures. This position is explicitly maintained, though without the red-flag word “infallible,” by science-groupies who constitute most of the capital-S Skeptics movement (CSICOP, etc., for instance is a supporter of AGW, as are other Skeptics organizations). The Pranksters on Olympus have taken note and given Science an opportunity to make a cosmic jackass of itself, like its “it’s-all-settled” predecessors. In twenty years, when all the AWGers’ excuses have run out, the scientific pretension to authoritative knowledge, good faith, self-correcting processes, objectivity, etc. will be a joke for the ages.

  83. Phil. (09:41:58) :
    Our Phil is an academic? At a prestigous institution of higher learning? How cool is that? And I thought only quacks like Svalgaard, Archibald and Spencer commented here. UUUhhh… I can find those guys with a Google search, Phil, just who are you?

  84. Phil. (09:41:58) : It’s SPPI, they use gloss to distract from the content, like they do with all Monckton’s polemics. I see Joanne has adopted his style of ad hominem attack too.
    “ad hominem attack” Phil? Your comment above on Joanne and Monckton sounds to me rather like one.
    From what I have read Mitchell Taylor seems to be an eminent Polar Bear researcher. To focus back on content and substance, which your post above seems to be lacking, do you have anything to say about why Mitchell Taylor should be excluded from a conference on Polar Bears because of his views on human induced climate change?
    Specifically it seems, whether human induced climate change is real or not, he has found that the survival on thriving of Polar Bears is linked to conservation and human hunting rather than Global Warming.
    Do you think this view is unreasonable in the light of his research and in the light of the fact that Polar bears survived the Eemian period when it was warmer than today?

  85. Cooperation is becoming ever more important as people realise that all nations have to work to clean things up.
    This puts exceedingly high value on the principle of cooperation and human bonding as something desirable in its own right.
    Maybe the scientific details suffer, but what is gained, what environmentalists and concerned scientists are aiming for, what they value most, is reaching a place where humans cooperate naturally and hold cooperation as their core principle.
    So if you are trying to build cooperation as the basic ethical outlook that people have on life, so that it becomes the natural order of things, then dissenting views are not welcome. I have seen exactly this in large group psychology/spiritual exercises, where problems are glossed over and those who point to the problems are accused of “taking energy from the space”, or of being “unhelpful”, or of “sabotage”.
    When people refer back to “the literature” what they are saying is “the group” (printing something on paper doesn’t make it more real or correct by virtue of it being on paper, the paper is just the medium).
    The environmentalists—-the more noble kind, I might add—-value cooperation, and want to build cooperation, and that is actually the aim, more so than any particular theory. It doesn’t matter if the theory has flaws, because if everyone can agree, then you’ve just built a group who work together and who are peaceful together and who can share with each other rather than fight each other, in other world, you’re building a better world.
    You’ve actually built a new kind of community.
    I would invite any environmentalist to tell me where I’m wrong on this point.
    The key concern and aim, is consensus itself, not the technical correctness of any particular theory.
    Let’s say people here are right and AGW is just wrong. Fine, you’ve set back environmentalism by decades, some would say. And is that really what you want? Are you perhaps not just selfishly scoring points when there are bigger issues at stake about human global cooperation?
    Perhaps environmentalists haven’t articulated this themselves, but as I say, am I wrong on this point?

  86. Thanks to Anthony for his marvelous work and for all the kind comments. Feedback is a powerful motivator.
    For those feeling weary: it is bone-sapping if you have to wade through another full gloss Synthesis Report which uses out of date data, logical fallacies, and presents only half the truth, but we are getting somewhere. We don’t have to have the media on our side to slow this gravy train. We have word of mouth. We have the net. People trust those they know… and they are looking for the right way to explain why they are suspicious of the hard sell.
    Thanks to everyone for spreading the word on web-sites and blogs, and at dinner parties or schools. We battle against major money and the most powerful institutions in the world (the banks), but we are shifting polls.
    Stefan, like you I’m concerned for environmental groups. By advocating policies based on fashion and group-think, who will trust them in five years time? Real environmental problems go ignored.
    As for the bigger issues about human cooperation at stake? What’s the point of cooperation” if people are cooperating to solve a non-problem? When this kind of operation “succeeds” hasn’t it just prevented people from working together to do something useful? (Like prevent malaria, or teach kids to reason.)
    Jeremy said: “The key concern and aim, is consensus itself, not the technical correctness of any particular theory. ”
    So if we are all in agreement that we can breathe underwater, then what matters is not that it works, but that we all do it together?
    REPLY: Thanks Joanne, you should see the new UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report (just a couple of stories up). Like the “Full Gloss Synthesis report” this one takes no prisoners when it comes to the absurd, using graphs from Wikipedia authors and images from WWF. – Anthony

  87. I think there is a significant story brewing on Climate Audit involving Yamal tree proxy data and how it has been fiddled to relate to / agree with the Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘smoking gun’ signature of the Hockey Stick.
    A story involving cherry picking of data, manipulation, cover-up and deceit.

  88. “Let’s say people here are right and AGW is just wrong. Fine, you’ve set back environmentalism by decades, some would say. And is that really what you want? Are you perhaps not just selfishly scoring points when there are bigger issues at stake about human global cooperation?”
    So, groupthink’s not a bug but a feature!
    (Incidentally, doesn’t that recently published book by an English member of IPCC come close to saying this?)

  89. Stefan,
    If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that cooperation is a worthy goal in its own right? It is an end unto itself? It is something worthy of striving for? For expending human intellectual capital on?
    I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. Apart from the obvious feel-good factor of having the tribe around you, sharing the communal fire, what are the tangible benefits of cooperation as a destination?
    I would thoroughly agree that cooperation within a group is an excellent means to achieving a common goal. But for the life of me, I cannot see it as a goal in and of itself.
    Science has always progressed through people saying, “Just a minute, that doesn’t look right. Something else is going on here”. That is why the earth is no longer flat, and modern society now enjoys the benefits of gravity.
    I am not a scientist, I am a analyst, so my views may be of little import. But as an analyst, it has been my career for the past forty years to look for patterns in events, and in particular, to look for discrepancies in those patterns. I have also used computer models since the late ’60s and am very much aware of their accuracy.
    So if the skeptics and deniers are proved right, we may well have pushed environmentalism (as it currently manifests itself) back by decades. But we will have stood up for Science, as the application of rational thought, and struck a blow against science as a religion.
    I am sure that environmental science (as opposed to environmentalism) will emerge stronger for it.

  90. Rereke Whakaaro (14:35:41) :
    Stefan forgot to finish his post with [/offsnark]
    I think you got his point.

  91. Rereke Whakaaro,
    Yes, I’m trying to understand the environmentalists’ reasons for blocking dissenting voices, and to understand them I am trying to suspend judgement of what they’re doing. I think they are partially correct, that some problems the world faces, are problems that need a culture of cooperation to help solve, but, cooperation is only part of the solution. I think you’re completely right, that rational thought is still the bedrock we need for any progress on any problem.
    Even if we all became “better” people by virtue of letting go of material desires, letting go of aggressive competitiveness, letting go of consumerism, letting go of greed (which is the aim, as one environmentalist told me, of CO2 cuts), even if we did that, we still have to figure out how to solve environmental problems–is wind really effective? is nuclear the better option? is CO2 even a problem or is it a benefit? how many people can we feed? what new technologies might be developed? and to solve those problems selflessly, we need clever analysts and rational thinkers.

  92. Robert E. Phelan (14:43:47) :
    Oh, well.
    I am sorry the sarcasm was a little too subtle for me.
    At least I feel better now.

  93. Stefan (15:00:03)
    Thank you for explaining that; and my apologies, it was not my intent to malign you in any way.
    It seems to me that concerns over climate variation (and the emerging concepts surrounding “virtual water”) are symptoms of an increasing global population – something that seems to be a taboo subject of discussion.
    I am pleased to see population in your list of parameters to be considered. I will follow your posts here with more interest from now on.

  94. Ron de Haan (12:58:15) :
    Because the warmists lack the science, the so called “consensus” has become the last frontier.
    They simply send out those who threaten the consensus.
    What should worry us is the fact that these are practices that were common in socialist societies like the USSR, Nazi Germany and China.
    It’s a strong indicator where we are heading

    Too true. Over the last week I have had an email discussion with a person who I once counted as a friend. To set the stage, 3 years ago, we agreed not to discuss GW or CC because it disturbed the other party greatly, being a true believer. In the past week the individual sent me two pro-AGW emails (remember the agreement). The first I ignored, the second I responded to by providing an alternative view of the subject. The insults, invectives and ad hominem comments flowed from the other side while I read with fascination each response, not taking the bait, so to speak.
    When the other party ended by stating that he would reserve the right to “correct” statements made by others where the science was faulty. I responded identically. My response garnered the statement “don’t bother if you’re just going to quote from the typical skeptic psycho-babble.
    In essence those of us on the skeptic side are not allowed to speak since the few sceptics that are left are all paid by the oil companies anyway, so have no credibility.
    Saddly, a friendship is broken, not likely to be rekindled. I hope this is not typical in the lives of others here.

  95. Richard (21:30:48) :
    From what I have read Mitchell Taylor seems to be an eminent Polar Bear researcher. To focus back on content and substance, which your post above seems to be lacking, do you have anything to say about why Mitchell Taylor should be excluded from a conference on Polar Bears because of his views on human induced climate change?

    Since my earlier response appears to have been censored (ironic in a thread about censorship) I’ll try again on this point.
    Taylor was a member of the group as an official member of the Canadian delegation by virtue of his position as Polar bear biologist for the Government of Nunavut. When he retired from that position his place on that delegation was taken by his successor as the polar bear biologist for the Government of Nunavut, Dr. Elizabeth (Lily) Peacock. In order to attend the group’s meeting Taylor needed an invitation as one of the limited number of ‘invited specialists’, he didn’t get it.

Comments are closed.