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.
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”.
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.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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”.
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?
Oh science… We hardly knew ye…
The barbarians are at the gate, advanced degrees in hand…
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.
This is really nothing new, though.
Look at the fate of celebrities who don’t stand with PETA. Or Scientology.
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?
Drat, missed tag.
polar bear expert…
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.
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.
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.
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!
“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)
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.
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.
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.
“So let it be written.” 🙂
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!
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.