(Is climate catastrophism losing its ‘politically correct’ grip?)
by Robert Bradley Jr. from masterresource.org
January 4, 2010
The times are changing in the wake of Climategate. And more is to come as the polluted science embedded in the email exchanges gets reviewed by talented amateurs and pros alike on the blogosphere (see Climate Audit, Roger Pielke Jr., and WattsUpWithThat, in particular).
Given time, the rethink will go mainstream. Scientists are truth seekers at heart, but an entrenched mainstream of climate scientists–so many of them friends and political allies–will need to be nudged out of their denialism.
Old voices are challenging their ‘mainstream’ colleagues, and new voices are coming forth. I have seen this clearly here in Houston (examples below), and I expect it is happening elsewhere.
Consider what Andy Revkin, the recently retired climate-change science writer at the New York Times, told the public editor at the Times regarding Climategate: “Our coverage, looked at in toto, has never bought the catastrophe conclusion and always aimed to examine the potential for both overstatement and understatement.”
Sounds like the Times will report both sides of the issue now, rather than just trumpet alarmism as it was prone to do in the past (remember William K. Stevens?). Joe Romm at Climate Progress (Center for American Progress) is furious at this development, but just maybe over-the-top Joe has himself to blame for getting Revkin and the like to want to report on both sides more than ever before. And Romm himself is now considered damaged goods by the Left, thanks to the four-part expose by the Breakthrough Institute.
Climategate, in short, is making quite a difference. But much more courage is needed.
Dr. Michelle Foss (University of Texas at Austin)
Consider Michelle Michot Foss, an internationally respected energy economist with the University of Texas at Austin who is past president of both the United States Energy Association and the International Associations for Energy Economics. Her December 8th letter to the New York Times read:
To the Editor:
Your editorial concludes, “It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.”
Hold on a minute. It was precisely because “one set” of opinions has been driving climate politics that the whistleblowers, not hackers, published the evidence. And it is precisely because of the type of coverage that The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations are giving the whistleblowing incident that the integrity of both the scientific and journalistic communities is being threatened.
Honest questions have been raised and honest attempts have been made to shed light on questionable claims about climate science for decades. We need to push for greater disclosure, more scrutiny, better research and a halt in the action before we jump into policy and regulatory schemes that we will deeply regret.
Dr. Foss has kept her views somewhat under wraps given her university position, but Climategate was enough for her to go public in the above very public way. And she has received a number of emails of support–and some emails by her alarmist friends to the effect: ‘gosh Michelle, I agree with you on Climategate, but I thought you were one of us….’
To such critics, her answer can be: Climategate proves that alarmism is exaggerated, and most modest warming scenarios win the debate for adaptation over mitigation. Robert Murphy has made this point in a post very widely read among economists and entitled “Apologist Responses to Climategate Misconstrue Real Issues.”
I think that if some on the UT-Austin faculty were to try to silence her powerful voice, they would have a (climate) McCarthyism issue on their hands post Climategate. What a difference compared to several months ago!
David Ball (11:02:29) :
And proud you should be. I recall once Steve McIntyre advised Tim to step out of the political debate (regarding see oh two as I recall) since it would not do him any good (I don’t remember the actual context). Steve, of all people, who has done more to wreck the “consensus” than anybody else (Ross as an accomplice, but only because he is not as active). Your father has been a beacon of light in an otherwise dark realm.
Mark
Susan C. (07:54:21) :
I have seen this effect myself. I am co-author on a scientific paper. A final draft was sent around for comments before being sent off to a journal for review. Climategate gave me the courage, born of outrage, to insist that the sentences which made gratuitous connections to global warming be removed as irrelevant
—…—
Thank you!
Peer-to-Peer Review: How ‘Climategate’ Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement, Part I
Posted by Patrick Courrielche Jan 8th 2010
How a tiny blog and a collective of climate enthusiasts broke the biggest story in the history of global warming science – but not without a gatekeeper of the climate establishment trying to halt its proliferation.
It was triggered at the most unlikely of places. Not in the pages of a prominent science publication, or by an experienced muckraker. It was triggered at a tiny blog – a bit down the list of popular skeptic sites. With a small group of followers, a blog of this size could only start a media firestorm if seeded with just the right morsel of information, and found by just the right people. Yet it was at this location that the most lethal weapon against the global warming establishment was unleashed.
http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/08/peer-to-peer-review-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement-part-i/
Now, as expected, the virtual organism that is the global warming establishment resisted release of the weapon. At the first appearance of the Climategate files, which contained a plethora of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, the virtual organism moved to halt their promulgation. Early on, a few of the emails were posted on Lucia Liljegren’s skeptic blog The Blackboard. Shortly after the post, Lucia, a PhD and specialist in fluid mechanics, received an email from prominent climatologist Gavin Schmidt from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). It said in part, “[A] word to the wise… I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so.”
In response to my inquiry about his email, Schmidt posited, “I was initially concerned that she might be in legal jeopardy in posting the stolen emails.” Gavin Schmidt was included in over 120 of the leaked correspondence.
When asked if she thought the Climategate documents were a big deal at first sight, Lucia responded, “Yes. In fact, I was even more sure after Gavin [Schmidt] sent me his note.”
Remember these names: Steven Mosher, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Jeff “Id” Condon, Lucia Liljegren, and Anthony Watts. These, and their community of blog commenters, are the global warming contrarians that formed the peer-to-peer review network and helped bring chaos to Copenhagen – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. One may have even played the instrumental role of first placing the leaked files on the Internet.
This group can be thought of as the first cousins to Andrew Breitbart’s collective of BIG websites – obsessively curious, grassroots investigators that provide vision to the establishment’s blind eye. Peer-to-peer review is the scientific version of the undernews.
To fully understand how this amorphous body came about, one has to press rewind – back to the introduction of the now famous “hockey stick” graph, and how this iconic image inadvertently gave birth to this group.
(Read it all)
Reply: I already scheduled this article for publishing tomorrow so you don’t get a hat tip. ~ charles the moderator
Well it is going to take more than courage in the media.
You have all these Universities, and their tenured professors, who are counting on retiring on the tuition fees of generations of new mushheads that they can indoctrinate into the cult of “Climatology”.
Some of them will be “mathematicians” who will seek to find just that precise value for a set of parameters to do a regression analysis, on some input data, presumably gleaned from some observational sites, that will suddenly cause a nice straight line graph to pop out of a plot of:-
Tav vs log (CO2)
We have some input data for such a graph going back to the Precambrian, and covering a CO2 range up to 8000 ppm, and down to todays miniscule levels; and if that’s a logarithmic function, then I’ll eat my hat; and I have a whole bunch of hats.
Just for laughs, I hauled out my Andy Grove (fmr Pres Intel Corp) “Physics, and Technology of Semiconductor Devices.”
It’s one of the classic text books of Silicon Valley, by one of its most recognized experts. I learned the subject at his knee, at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1967.
In the chapter on p-n junctions, Grove derives the accepted formula for the Voltage versus Current in a semiconductor diode, and then publishes measured curves for real diodes, for a variety of semiconductor materials such as Germanium, Slicon, and Gallium Arsenide. He shows that the current is composed of a diffusion current, and a recombination current, and follows the formula:-
If = a.e^[q.Vf/m.k.T} Here q is the electron charge, k is Boltzmann’s constant, T the temperature (Kelvins) and m is 1 for diffusion current, or 2 for recombination current. Recombination current dominates at very low currents (pA), and recombination current at higher levels (mA) for typical signal diodes.
In Ga As diodes for example, recombination current dominates over most of the useful range, and the If-Vf curve follows the above formula accurately from 1pA to 10 microAmps at 25-50 deg C temperature ranges.
THAT IS A LOGARITHMIC RELATIONSHIP THAT IS ACCURATE OVER SEVEN DECADES.
Silicon and Germanium are progrssively less well behaved, but Si is logarithmic at m = 1 from about 1 uA to 10 mA, which is still four decades. Higher bandgap materials may be even better behaved.
The point is that SOME physical processes truly are logarithmic relationships (same as exponential backwards).
So Dr Steven Schneider’s assertion of a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and Temperature should be a piece of cake, since the extreme range of CO2 values since the Cambrian is something less than 60; not even two orders of magnitude.
Well save your breath; the available data for that relationship, is not even remotely a straight line over that range or even the 20:1 range from today’s value for CO2.
Well, within the range on human instrumented measurements of CO2, we pretty much have the range from 280 ppm up to 390ppm; almost 1.4 : 1 range.
So maybe its logarithmic over that restricted range of CO2 values. Wow !, now we don’t even have one order of magnitude, let alone seven; we don’t even have a single ocatve, which wpould demonstrate the IPCC’s hallowed value of 3 deg C; or is it 3.6; well it could be between as low as 1.2 and as high as 10 they say when their 3:1 GCM fudge factor is thrown in.
Hey it is almost half an octave range; surely that’s enough to prove a logarithmic relationship.
Well unfortunately the relationship observed is not even monotonic; and given that ln(1 + x) can be expanded as x -x^2 /2 + x^3 /3 etc, the first error term, never exceeds 8%, and the third is 2% and either one of those is much less error than is in the raw data.
So the observed data, is just as likely to be perfectly linear, as it is to be logarithmic.
So even empirically; the mathematical foundation for Schneider’s “Climate Sensitivity” is a complete joke; and becomes a riot, if you search for a physical causality for such a logarithmic relationship.
Yet the adherents to the current dogma of climatology scoff at those who don’t follow their methodology. Well you have to learn the rules; and the secret handshake, before you are competent to comment on their regression analyses.
Well actually the rules of science haven’t changed. The burden of proof for any science theory, rests on the proponents; not on the skeptics.
So the real courage, is whether this entrenched religion, is ready to toss the whole trappings, and return to the rational world, where the theory has to follow the observations, and not the other way round.
charles the moderator
I post for the dissenmination of the information, not for recognition.
Peter Stroud (10:01:43) :
“And all the while we sceptics point out the disgrace of Climategate and the barefaced lies put out by such con men as the CE of the UK Met Office and Al Gore. What do we hear from those that matter…
Until just one of the great and the good breaks ranks, I am afraid we are just p*****g in the wind.”
Start campaigning for a reasonable politician and hope like heck for a really bad snowstorm a week or two before the election. Sort of an Al Gore effect on the greenie candidates
Mark T (13:30:23) :
“David Ball (11:02:29) :
Makes me so proud of my father who has stuck to his guns for more than 30 years, despite all the lies and misinformation on the net about him.
And proud you should be….
Thank your Father for his courage. I always enjoy reading his articles. It is nice to see there are still a few leaders left in this world.
David Ball,
What a pleasure to see your comment – I’ve been reading your father’s articles for some time now. I always look forward to a new one from him.
I haven’t seen the video yet – I’ve had it open in a tab waiting for my husband to have the time to watch with me.
I already started reading bigjournalism yesterday as I knew it was being set up but hadn’t looked today yet (came here first) – now I’m even more impressed that they already have an article about us – if I may be so presumptuous as to include myself in the commenters acknowledgment, rare though that is. I’d like to see all the sites get a mention with time. And I was pleased that Jeff Id’s Air Vent was mentioned by name, as several articles about how it all started have not.
I consider myself a lucky one who saw the comment at Jeff Id’s while he was gone – not only did I not have the time just then but felt it was way beyond my competency to dare to open it but waited with bated breath for what would come from it – feeling that history was in the making.
While I can’t contribute – at least not yet – at least I feel good about the role I can have in not only learning but also letting others know that there are places like this (just when I thought I was driving people crazy in Facebook, I got a thanks from someone I thought was totally resistant!).
Re bigjournalism – did they coin the term peer-to-peer or has that already been used? Great term!
I am glad that WUWT published this piece to get MasterResource links to a wider audience.
Yes, the Wiki link is probably weak–we need to keep working for balance there.
Michelle Foss is not a UT-Austin professor but head of a UT energy program here in Houston, Texas. Wish there were professors like her, however.
Best wishes to all,
Rob Bradley
It was triggered at the most unlikely of places. Not in the pages of a prominent science publication, or by an experienced muckraker.
I remember the evening and night when the story broke. I remember the first confirmation of the accuracy of the e-mails. I blogged it as soon as I had read the first news at WUWT. I stayed up all night to keep on top of the story. (no hardship I normally keep programmers hours) What fun. The logjam had finally been broken. The great ship of the the Climate Cabal had been holed below the water line. What was once circumstantial evidence was now open fact.
Over time it is my hope that scepticism will be restored to its proper place in science. Because skepticism is the essence of science.
A heartfelt thank you to all who responded to my post. There are a couple of things in the works that will please all those who question the validity of ACC. One may turn out to be VERY big. Keep reading, ….. Dave
Hmm, just thought I would post this, from the Farmers Almanac forum.
his is just my observation (Nothing official, & I may be mistaken completely, just to keep in Mind). HOWEVER, I saw something today that really got me angry if it is indeed true, well, its sick, if that happens to be the case.
I Keep track & save Data files from NOAA/CPC. As some of you may know, the Current El Nino Fell Very Weak in Fall, (It was actually below +0.5F for a time, which is technically not a nino according to them). When I went to check the Latest Official Update, the so called “official” Data from portions of the Fall had been Changed, & had the Temerature & Strength of the Nino RISEN, for that matter. The reason I know this is because I record this data, & when I saw the change, In my View, from what I know, I got the feeling NOAA was trying to sneak something in. I may be wrong, but I , at least, want an explanation for the change, as there should be no change to “official” data unless a statement is released informing of the impending change. I’ll make a request for an explanation, as best I can. But IMO, seeing how folks just make up numbers these days is driving me off the edge! Any Thoughts/Comments?
http://www.farmersalmanac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1133
God bless Tim Ball, and his son David who has graced us with his post today. Keep fighting the good fight, both of you. But I know (probably because Tim is Canadian) that he confused Obama science advisor John Holdren with Attorney General Eric Holder in the YouTube video. But that is okay, both Holder and Holdren probably share the same twisted mind on this subject and both of them are charlatans who need to be thrown out of their offices.
This article is spot on. One does not have to look very hard on the internet to see the difference in tone from many experts and the commenting public. There has been a fundamental shift in how everyone processes the AGW propaganda.
It’s also about timing. Everything in life is about timing and history is littered with such examples. We’ve witnessed some very coincidental events that have combined to work against and halt the AGW momentum.
Not only was there a global decrease in temperatures over the last decade, but the worldwide economic downturn has created an atmosphere less sympathetic to the any over-the-top environmental regulations and taxation. 2009 seemed to usher in more counter AGW research and more groups speaking out against the “consensus” agenda. Then Climate Gate occurred and a flurry of resultant negative events leading into Copenhagen which seemed doomed from the beginning, but certainly fell apart for many of these same reasons listed within.
And now a weather-not-climate cold spell to usher in the New Year and remind us that being cold is, well, not really cool [pun – couldn’t resist]. It’s a perfect storm to derail AGW – with a little courage as noted.
Even the magazine “Popular Mechanics” has boarded the AGW bus. I had to double check the February, 2009 issue to make sure it wasn’t by some chance “Popular Science”, which has long been kowtowing to the “hockey team”.
David Ball (21:31:50) :
David, I’d just like to join with the others in wishing the very best to you and your distinguished father. When the history of this sorry tale is finally written we can be sure that your father – and the others, such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Steve McIntyre – will have a place of honour.
I’m nearly at retirement age. A year ago my passionate wish was that I would see the tide turning in my lifetime. But who could have imagined what happened towards the end of 2009?
Just another indication of how the tide may be turning: a report in the Daily Telegraph, whose coverage in the past has been relentlessly biased and one-sided. The heading: “Plant gene to fight climate change”.
In most WUWT readers the obvious thought will be “Here we go again”. But not a bit of it. This report suggests the (ominous) possibility of extended global cooling, as the development could be used to protect plants in lower temperatures. Here’s the report:
“British scientists have discovered a technique that affects how plants react to temperatures, leading to the prospect of crops resistant to climate change.
Tests on a mustard seed plant at the John Innes Centre in Norwich suggested that the gene that triggered growth in warmer months could be manipulated in a way that made the plant grow even when the temperature was very low”.
Oliver K. Manuel (08:03:40) :
Whether or not they believe Al Gore is the primary perpetrator, a lawsuit would help us get to the bottom of an intriguing mess that involves leaders of many different countries and organizations, such as Nobel Laureates Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri of the UN’s IPCC, Former Vice-President Al Gore, Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NAS and literally armies of consensus scientists.”
And don’t forget the Culinary Institute of America! The wacos behind the whole gambit.
Larry (22:02:28) I thank you for the compliment. I would like to assure you that my father knows very well who John Holdren is. He watched as Holdren assassinated the character of Sallie Balliunas at Harvard. He was in communication with Soon and Baliunas at the time. Hopefully Sallie Baliunas returns to fight the good fight now that Climategate has revealed the devious intent of Mr. Holdren . Big shout out to the anti-humanists in the crowd. Go freedom of speech!!!
David Ball:
Your father is a hero. Those of us who value truth honour him. In years to come when the history of the AGW scare is studied then he will be recorded as a hero by posterity.
Be proud. Be very proud.
Richard
I have failed to keep pace with developments over the Christmas break and the return of my son for a week of leave from Navy. I came upon this article, seeking understanding (and pleaseohplease encouragement) about how the debate had evolved.
I find myself pleased and encouraged if this article does justice to the condition of things. The whistleblower and his CRUdities have had a lingering and evolving effect. Maybe we won’t end up as Zimbabwe after all!!
Here is some courage:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4782&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29