Bradley Fikes writes in the NCtimes.com
A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.
Boy, was I naive.
Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even outright fraud, I’ve been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those columns, I even wrote: “And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science without the political spin.”
In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists, concerned more with politics than with science.
My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can also exploit their agenda for profit.
Read the entire story here in the NCtimes.com
h/t to ClimateDepot
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bradley J Fikes: “And I have not gone to any position of advocacy; indeed I retain an open mind about AGW. I just want the fraud and bad science cleared out. That is a properly skeptical attitude in the wake of such a revelation.”
The properly sceptical attitude is to withhold judgement. You have made a judgement that fraud has occurred, and you have urged that “the fraud and bad science [be] cleared out”.
Your views on the science are irrelevant to the issue of the behaviour of the scientists. On that issue you have taken a position, and are urging the adoption of a certain course of action. That’s advocacy.
“Einstein on smashing atoms at will and predictions of manned flight reminds me of the alleged prediction by T.J.Watson, founder of IBM that there would ever only be a market for five computers. This quote is disputed, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson ”
You cite Wikipedia! There should be a new version of Godwin’s law – first to cite the Wiki loses….
But seriously, I have some sympathy for whoever suggested that the world market for computers would be small. I think they were right. You see, they were NOT talking about PCs or micros at the time – they were talking about large super-computer number-crunchers.
Even today, when prices have dropped astoundingly, the market for these is miniscule. I suppose most countries in the world would still be quite happy with 5 of these number-crunchers – they are really only used for complex fluid dynamics simulation such as weather or nuclear bomb design….
The truth about “carbon” taxes
If anyone was in any doubt about the ability of Governments to latch onto any excuse to raise taxes, even based on the massive “global warming” fraud, here is a convincing example from the Britain’s ability to tax air passengers.
Return fare from London to Los Angeles: £365
£46 for the fare
£319 in taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/air-passenger-duty/6867584/Ryanair-passengers-forced-to-lick-ice-cubes-is-bad—but-air-travel-is-going-to-get-worse.html
In a year when the airline industry has made record $11 billion losses, British airlines think that upping their ancillary revenues (extra charges) is the way to tempt passengers back: BA has joined the low-cost bandwagon by charging for second bags and pre-booked seats, some airports now charge people to drop of passengers or even pass through security gates, while the Government has got in on the act by raising Air Passenger Duty (APD) at a time when other European countries have abandoned their equivalent taxes. We have reached the ludicrous situation where by next year the average £365 return fare from London to Los Angeles will see passengers pay £319 in taxes and £46 for the fare.
No wonder then that more than half of Telegraph readers said this week that they have been put off traveling abroad during the festive period next year. Have we reached the nadir for air travel in this country? Probably not. The Government plans to raise APD again next November.
I suggest we change the word “Denialist” to “Realist”. That puts the monkey back on the AGWers as being outside the realm of reality, which is truly the case.
We can take the moral high ground by calling ourselves Global Warming Realists, or Climate Change Realists. Our quest is for honest-to-goodness information and the utilization of unadulterated scientific methodology. It’s time our name reflected our views.
Brendan H, that’s a ridiculous assertion. You would have everyone sit around zen like saying “I don’t know, no one knows, no one should do anything because action is an assertion of knowing and I do not know, ohhhhmmmm”
We have the evidence of the deliberate hiding and destruction of data. As Brandon has pointed out, that is prima facie evidence of fraud on someone’s part. Just who and how much they are personally responsible, we don’t know yet and that’s what requires investigation. But what Brandon has said is absolutely correct – nothing can be known until the fraud and bad science is cleared out. And that clearing out must begin immediately.
Nick Stokes – very BAD analogy!!! You claim that revealing data is like “auditing tax returns” – how openly you show your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method!!! You speak like an apparatchik or an accountant, not as a scientist. (Which leads to a suspicion I’ve long had, is that true scientists are very scarce in the AGW ranks)
A tax return is something only done to fulfill the requirements of a legal structure, and as with all legal documents it is subject to laws concerning privacy. A tax return is *never* filled out to advocate mass changes in government policy, or to argue for a completely new world structure which would supercede other citizens rights!
Science done well is *dependant* on the immediate dissemination of all data and the willingness to see that all data and it’s related theories are strongly tested by all comers, *especially* those who have nothing to do with the original project. Only after it stands up to such an assault should it even begin to hope to become widely accepted.
Warmists are wishing for an Alice in Wonderland world where they get to play the Red Queen and shriek “Sentence First!!! Verdict Afterwards!!!!”
Science doesn’t work that way, as all true scientists know.
@ur momisugly Alan D McIntire (17:32:24)
Thanks for quoting Feynman. I miss his values, and passion for science these days. 🙁
Einstein had little to do with it, true, but Szilard put his name to it just the same. I think I have seen the patent in Physics Today many years ago.
Bart (22:43:21) :
You may be correct. I might have been thinking of the refrigerator patent. I recall reading that Szilard was concerned that Einstein never seemed to look out for his interests financially and so put Einstein’s name to patents he had little to do with. However, if the quote is accurate, then it is still ironic that Einstein’s mentee held such patent.
Your views on the science are irrelevant to the issue of the behaviour of the scientists. On that issue you have taken a position, and are urging the adoption of a certain course of action. That’s advocacy.
I don’t quite get your point. The behavior is wrong, wrong wrong. It impeaches the credibility of the research they’re involved in. That’s why we need to bring in skeptics and outsiders. That is not “advocacy”, that is common sense. The advocates are the ones saying Climategate doesn’t affect the evidence for AGW and move along, nothing to see.
Nick,
Scientists have ways of interacting that doesn’t include barrages of FOI requests and the general snarling that goes on at CA and WUWT. Not to mention publication of private emails. You may be able to force scientists to do it your way, but you can’t expect them to enthusiastically volunteer.
From all I can tell, most of the “snarling” has been done by the Climategate people. You can see it in the emails.
Judith Curry had a great suggestion for scientists who don’t want to be hassled with providing data: Put everything on the Web so anyone can inspect the raw data, intermediate steps, etc. Voila! No more FOIA hassles.
Phil Clarke (16:08:26) :
Deliberately withholding evidence that goes against your theory in published research is scientific fraud.
Fair enough. So let us be absolutely careful, clear and specific. You are levelling an accusation of outright fraud against Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University for the withholding of evidence. Is that correct?
Please be specific, which published theory in which papers was contradicted by these data? What exactly do the data show?
Please confirm that you wish to make a serious and highly public accusation of scientific fraud against Professor Mann, in the knowledge that it will almost certainly be defamatory if you cannot provide adequate supporting evidence.
Note that Professor Mann did not actually withhold anything, he provided some data to a colleague and asked that he be consulted before those data were shared more widely. In my opinion, given the absurd distortions that some are prepared to indulge in this seems to me more indicative of sensible precautions than fraud.
More detail, please. I am sure that you won’t object to me forwarding your allegations on to Professor Mann while we are waiting, and cross-posting this to RealClimate?
So, Mr. Clarke, is this you? Assuming it is, I see two areas you specialize in are
Carbon Credits and Climate Change. This would certainly explain your rather zealous interest here. Meanwhile, we anxiously await your responses from Mann and your buds over at RC. Since we know how interested in the truth they all are, and all……
chirrup-chirrup-chirrup…
It’s over buddies….but they will use now other weapons instead: NGO’s, human rights, etc. until, finally, all these organizations end…leaving a lot of “collateral damage” behind…
perhaps on the 21st. of december of 2021, who knows ☺☺
wws (05:43:07) : Spot on. Nick is pushing a false analogy.
Nick Stokes (00:25:14) :
“…but you can’t expect them to enthusiastically volunteer.”
I certainly do! Unequivocally and emphatically. It is de rigeur. It is sine qua none.
How in the world did you ever get such a twisted view of Science? This is what Science is all about. If one does not like it, one should not engage in the scientific professions.
The bad thing about the whole global warming debate is you can twist the data to look how ever you want. But the truth of it is that if you look over the cycles of the earth there has always been climate change.
Phil Clarke (14:15:12) :
Wow could you have even a slightly more veiled threat? Look Phil, in the emails I read there was collusion to keep Climate Skeptics to get published. That in and of itself is a kind of fraud. So yes I think you can safely accuse Mann of pushing an agenda in a way to create fraud on the if not political community then the scientific community because if only Warming Agenda Driven science is published then what would most of the scientists out there believe?
Oh and please forward this onto real climate I would love for them to actually post something that disagrees with them. But please only post the thing in its entirely.
Oh and please if someone comes up with numbers to back up their position and they arrive at them through a delusional belief in those numbers that they make up or process being correct when it is nothing more then the fevered delusions of a mad man. Is that classified as fraudulent data or just poor science? Now if those numbers were then used by a political organization to justify tax increases in order to fix the problem those numbers show what then?
When do you call something fraud? Please explain that and then I can tell you whether or not Mann fraudulently claimed that CO2 was causing the world to warm. Is it fraud when a group of people say that your numbers do not make sense and you respond by trying to shut them out of a chance to get their reasons heard? Or simply say, they are in the pocket of big oil ( even when they are not? ) Is that not fraud? or at least the same defamation of character that you just spoke of?
Get a clue Phil and please stop trying to threaten people. It only exposes the fact that you are trying to silence those that feel duped.
RE: photon without a Higgs (19:30:51) :
Y’all got me breakin’ … alternating with head bangin’ in the pit … man, my old bones can barely still do this! LOL!
The refrigerator was based on magnetohydrodynamics and according to a contemporary, “Screamed like a banshee.” Something about magnetic constriction of the metal parts – must have been something to experience.
As I recall, they were in Holland, Leiden University, I think, when they invented it.
I believe all journalists, politicians and even Al Gore now know that AGW is a hoax – they are just in denial. What a huge joke this is.
“The first ones now will later be last
And the times they are a’changin”
wws (05:43:07) :
Nick Stokes – very BAD analogy!!!
No, it’s a very good analogy for its purpose, which is to say that if anyone in the world can come and say “Hold it, buddy, justify this to me again!”, then you’ll never get anything done. And the climate auditors behave as if they should have a right to do just that.
Bradley J. Fikes (07:16:46) :
From all I can tell, most of the “snarling” has been done by the Climategate people. You can see it in the emails.
Private emails, Bradley. The snarling at scientists is public and loud. You can hear it on this thread, and most others at WUWT.
Nick Stokes (11:04:59) :
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t scientists be used to criticism of their work? People criticize everything, ask Brad Childress or Mike Tomlin. The “snarling” aimed at the audit firm Arthur Andersen was “public and loud” enough to bankrupt them, yet they were eventually exonerated in court, to no effect on the result of the company folding. Where was your sympathy for the ‘victims’ of misplaced public intention then, Mr. Stokes?
If the data were published with the papers, there would not even be a need for interaction between the scientists unless there were questions or something was done wrong. This is why auditors have to keep their work papers. Because auditors get audited also, and there is a great amount of emphasis placed on the ability to reproduce the work of an audit to see how the results were achieved. There are fines and jail time involved in negligent or fraudulent audits, what is involved in science? You have to respond to email? Provide data that was used in your work? It is not as though every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world were writing Dr. Phil asking for his data, is it?
Scientists need to have their work criticized as much as auditors do. Yes, this was a bad analogy for you to pick to prove your point.
I’m in my own camp here. I think “Global Warming” was just a good reason to scare the masses (and force them) into using less resources (OIL) through fear and taxation. The problem lies in the fact oil has/is near/or right now is peaking. I’m not saying we are running out, but the cheap/easy stuff is and now we are left with oil sands and deep water drilling. Notice how the MSM (and others) never seem to report on oil production (present/current/future), yet talk about AGW all the time. In my book, oil is VITAL to our economy, more so then some warming… The only alternative is to electrify everything ASAP and head down the nuclear road.
What I haven’t seen, other than from Anthony, by and large, is people with the scientific knowledge to do decent evaluation of “globle warming” studies. That is, people with scientific training who have no interest in the outcome of the study, whether the outcome affects the purse of those doing the reviews, furthers some political or policy agenda, or merely the stature of the person(s) in the scientific community. What would be called “disinterested” people.
Anthony has been going at it in the right way, IMHO. He has been busy checking to see whether or not the basic data, temperature readings at temperature measuring stations, are in themselves accurate, or valid. Without the basic data having validity, studies done using such inaccurate and unreliable data are themselves worthless. The margin of error is huge compared to the variances in temperature being measured.
I, personally having a curiosity in all things “scientific”, have been dismayed at what Anthony has found to be. To think that huge government policy decisions are being made from such flimsy “evidence”, affecting the economic well being of the entire populations of western nations, frightens me, to say the least.
I may be only a professional civil engineer, but I did also major in physics in college. I also took 2 semesters of “heavy duty” chemistry, 3 lectures and 2 labs each week of college. There, we spent an entire lab period with first a lecture regarding the use of mercury thermometers, how they function, how to go about “reading” them properly, primarily avoiding parallax, but other factors as well, far to lengthy to post here, and also learning that the temperature that a mercury thermometer indicates is the temperature of the mercury thermometer itself, which may or may not be the temperature of what surrounds the mercury thermometer, depending on circumstances, once again too lengthy to go into here. I do remember enough of that lab to give a lecture in the subject myself.
That people such as Mann think of themselves so highly, so as to not allow people with knowledge and training in involved science and math relevant to the study methods and procedures, to refuse to release all elements involved in his “studies”, speaks worlds to me. Mainly, he can’t be trusted, nor can the “outcome” of any study he produces be trusted.
Having studies reviewed by only members of a “mutual admiration society” is no way to go about finding any scientific “fact”, or really approaching “fact” as best as could be done.
that is “global”, of course, pardon me.
magicjava (14:11:38) :
[quote]welcome to the dark side.[/quote]
Gives “thumbs up” sign while cashing check from Exxon Mobil.
SIGHHHhhhh
And WHO do you think fund Greenpeace, Sierra Club and WWF??? The Rockefeller foundations. “But,in 1966, testimony before the Patman Committee indicated that the nine Rockefeller family foundations also controlled an average of about 3 % in the Standard Oil Trust descendants.” The controllers of Exxon Mobil are the Rockefellers through several different interlocking groups! see: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2802